Gnostic Elements in Early Catholicism

[Daniel_Keeran]

1. So is praying to the dead a pagan practice… um nope it is not… because the prayers for the dead are directed to Jesus Christ to have mercy on those that have died.
   REPLY: This was not a practice in the early church as recorded in sacred scripture.
2. Are prayers to the Saints pagan practice? …um nope they are not… because anyone who is a member of the body of Christ (his church) when they die are still alive in Christ and still a part of his church but in heaven.
   REPLY: Prayers to the saints is not the practice of the early church as recorded in sacred scripture.
3. Just as we can ask one another, who are part of the church on earth, to pray for us. We can rest asure that we can ask those in heaven to pray for us.
   REPLY: Again, this is not the practice of the early church as recorded in sacred scripture.

 

[LionHeart777]

was Sola Scriptura a practise of the early Church as recorded in Scripture?

I personally am still wrestling w/ letting go of Sola Scriptura

besides the thread here, there are a lot of other practices that imo line up w/ Scripture that were practiced by early Christians but are not practiced by Protestants,

I’ve not read that book and I admit I was kind of quick to post that…but the authors intent does seem to indicate to me that modern scholarship is looking towards Scriptre as a big force fueling the monastic movement, whereas this was overlooked in the past (if I unterstand the author correctly, re: my last post.)

nothing to do w/ last post, but are you a Seventh Day Adventist?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

was Sola Scriptura a practise of the early Church as recorded in Scripture?

I personally am still wrestling w/ letting go of Sola Scriptura

besides the thread here, there are a lot of other practices that imo line up w/ Scripture that were practiced by early Christians but are not practiced by Protestants,

I’ve not read that book and I admit I was kind of quick to post that…but the authors intent does seem to indicate to me that modern scholarship is looking towards Scriptre as a big force fueling the monastic movement, whereas this was overlooked in the past (if I unterstand the author correctly, re: my last post.)

nothing to do w/ last post, but are you a Seventh Day Adventist?

No I am not a 7-day adventist. Catholicism has more in common with scripture than Protestamnts do in my opinion, but the other option is to stick to scripture. Another thread should address this and the idea of apostolic succession, the magisterium, papacy, etc. I agree that although the Burton-Christie book is more supportive of monasticism as influenced by scripture, it still points out the strong gnostic involvement. I don’t know if it discusses the role of Syrian monasticism and gnosticism represented by Marcionite celibate congregations.

 

[LionHeart777]

re: are you a 7th Day Adventist?

sorry if that was an insult.

if it makes you feel better, your answersing this ? in the negative makes you more credible w/ me…although I still disagree w/ you on your view (if I understand you correctly) on Catholicism swallowing gnosticism by a way of a sort of unintentional stealth osmosis

not that you were seeking my approval in the first place

p.s. I just picked up my copy of Eusebius “The History of the Church.” wasn’t really meaning to look this up but I came across his talking about Philo talking about the therapeutae

peace,

ng

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

was Sola Scriptura a practise of the early Church as recorded in Scripture?

I personally am still wrestling w/ letting go of Sola Scriptura

I forgot to answer this question. Another way to word it is, was listening to the apostles and inspired spiritually gifted prophets, the practice of the early church? The scripture is a product of the apostles of prophets on whom the church was built. Here are some relevant passages:

Ephesians 2:19-21 “Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the APOSTLES AND PROPHETS, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.” (no mention of pope or Peter here)

Ephesians 4:11-13 “It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.” (notice the absence of pope or of Peter)

2 Timothy 3:16 “All SCRIPTURE is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be THOROUGHLY equipped for every good work.”

1 John 4:6 “We are from God, and whoever knows God LISTENS TO US; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.” (this is John speaking, not the pope or even Peter)

 

[CentralFLJames]

…
The whole idea of gnosticism was to look and act as much like whatever they were trying to supplaint to make their beliefs seem to be the natural progression that the religion should go whether it was pagan, Jewish or Christian.

Oh my - you are giving me more encouragement to further pursue my new tongue-n-cheek theory that Protestantism was all a result of a secret fringe Gnostic loose knit cult hiding in the monasteries waiting for opportunities to come out of the closet. It was all part of a huge secret society network (let’s toss in free masons too) conspiracy that finally saw its chance to re-host itself into the state governments (and thereby fund itself) who’s leaders wanted autonomy from Rome. The key was an opportunistic confluence of events that all were expertly exploited by opportunists who knew how to integrate all the circumstances. The key was inventing the adaptable Rosetta stone of “sola scriptura” that through private interpretation can be made to regenerate at whim new apparently scriptural secret “truths” from a universally recognized standard (the bible). Other factors were the new invention of the printing press that blindsided government and church authorities from censuring their use before it was too late. The other thing was the versizing of scripture in the mid 1500’s – not surprisingly by an enterprising book and soon to be bible publisher business man - Robert L Estienne (no doubt another insider). [ed: I started this off tongue and cheek but I am on a roll and want to see where this goes…]

Once the bible was given a widely accepted chapter and verse indicy/number convention by Robert I Estienne in 1551 AD (a Catholic book/bible publisher turned Evangelical heretic - no doubt made wealthy by his publishing bibles as manifestos for religious revolution) the bible could be sliced and diced in any desired way. That is, the versation of the bible made it easy for every imaginable hobbyist of scripture (even if he could hardly read with comprehension) to create any new religion du-jur from verses popular with the bourgeois that had the same texture and taste of orthodox “Christianity” (e.g. Catholicism) but relied on ‘secret’ hidden interpretations too sublime for the “ignorant papists” to fathom (very Gnostic sounding and very Lutherian). And no doubt Luther finally found his cure for scrupulosity in the opium of a bible that if studied deeply enough “by the numbers” (the odd and unlucky ones no doubt) and while under the gloom of alcohol and guilt about being unchaste could now be made to justify any wild idea. Perhaps even a statement like (paraphrasing a composition of Lutherian ideas): ‘sin and sin boldly since God’s grace is greater than any sin and God hates a person who does not know the value of grace by not sinning really really badly to gain that experience’. [ed: running with this…]

In essence a new neo-Christian religion becomes almost a matter of a random toss of the dice over selected key verse numbers one wants to retain as sacrosanct. This would make it literally “child’s play” to invent all new teachings by random paring of verses out of context and make use of ostensibly hidden and secret (Gno)wledge for just about any new christian-like religion du-jour. Thus a neo-secular druid could thread and mosaic together any combination of free-form scripture verses to arrive an any new tower of babel of conflicted ideas that might appeal to one’s whim. The agility of the concept is seen in how rapidly it could accommodate reconstructing any number of “yet another denomination” every time the prior system was attacked by the “papists” as heretical (or by competing Protestant clerics who had invested skin in an earlier version). Or it could be a pure business decision when the idea petered out and the tithing base lost interest in paying the up-line its vig or it all fell to earth under the severity of gravity of error. The beauty is that when the new neo-christian religion du-jour is pressured or attacked as heretical the bourgeois could always be played through the age old class-envy/anti-authority demagoguery common to the class. Thus the sponsors always had cheap mercenaries who would be willing to die for their manufactured beliefs to fund the new revolution as a revolutionary force. But the bourgeois caught on and and now every mom-n-pop with a bible is opening their own bible-churches and the revenue base is shared with a 32,000 denominational down-line to demonstrate that its not scalable under a multi-level marketing structure and everyone is catching on… so much for secret knowledge…

Gnosticism - the perfect adaptable ideological and religious parasite - until it eats its own lunch…

Watch out Dan Brown I am on to your money making game and its my turn to crank out the pulp fiction novels now…

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

I forgot to answer this question. Another way to word it is, was listening to the apostles and inspired spiritually gifted prophets, the practice of the early church? The scripture is a product of the apostles of prophets on whom the church was built. Here are some relevant passages:

Ephesians 2:19-21 “Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the APOSTLES AND PROPHETS, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.” (no mention of pope or Peter here)

Ephesians 4:11-13 “It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.” (notice the absence of pope or of Peter)

2 Timothy 3:16 “All SCRIPTURE is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be THOROUGHLY equipped for every good work.”

1 John 4:6 “We are from God, and whoever knows God LISTENS TO US; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.” (this is John speaking, not the pope or even Peter)

Notice that Paul is always speaking holistically in the context of the holistic Church as the Body of Christ being built up by members of His Church. Paul is speaking universally - this is a very “Catholic” perspective. There is no reason to speak of one body part over another. It would be pointless for Paul to get into a full organizational structure. He is speaking in macro terms - a big picture panoramic view with large categories - Christ-Apostles-Prophets-Citizens. It would be semantically in-congruent to speak of classes of things (e.g. prophets and apostles) then segue into specific instances or instantiated objects of those classes or categories and say something like “oh yeah, BTW Peter is the head man here on earth, and I am his bellybutton that he pushes to do all the real work out in the field”.

Let’s not forget too that Paul and all the early church leaders thought Christ’s return was eminent and were not thinking too much about a succession plan. There is plenty of scriptural evidence that proves Peter was looked up to and made the decisions and is always listed first among the others.

The verse from John is demonstrating nothing other than the college of bishops who are of one accord working together in union with the bishop of Rome. He always speaks in terms of “we” and “us”. They knew they were the leadership and within the apostles Peter was always first.

James

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

1. It would be pointless for Paul to get into a full organizational structure. He is speaking in macro terms - a big picture panoramic view with large categories - Christ-Apostles-Prophets-Citizens.
   REPLY: This would be the place to mention the most important position on earth: the vicar of Christ. Paul would have said, “Some to be the head, others apostles, prophets…” The fact he left this role out means there was none in Paul’s mind other than Christ as head.
2. Let’s not forget too that Paul and all the early church leaders thought Christ’s return was eminent and were not thinking too much about a succession plan. There is plenty of scriptural evidence that proves Peter was looked up to and made the decisions and is always listed first among the others.
   REPLY: There is nothing that says Peter “made the decisions.” The imminent end would not have kept Paul from just happening to mention somewhere that Peter was head and rock of the church.

3.The verse from John is demonstrating nothing other than the college of bishops who are of one accord working together in union with the bishop of Rome. He always speaks in terms of “we” and “us”. They knew they were the leadership and within the apostles Peter was always first.
REPLY: The apostles were chosen by Christ; they were not a college of bishops as this was a much later development. The John passage does not support Peter as head but is meant to reconfirm his faith following his three denials.

But this needs another thread on the papacy, so I will not indulge it further.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Oh my - you are giving me more encouragement to further pursue my new tongue-n-cheek theory that Protestantism was all a result of a secret fringe Gnostic loose knit cult hiding in the monasteries waiting for opportunities to come out of the closet. It was all part of a huge secret society network (let’s toss in free masons too) conspiracy that finally saw its chance to re-host itself into the state governments (and thereby fund itself) who’s leaders wanted autonomy from Rome. The key was an opportunistic confluence of events that all were expertly exploited by opportunists who knew how to integrate all the circumstances. The key was inventing the adaptable Rosetta stone of “sola scriptura” that through private interpretation can be made to regenerate at whim new apparently scriptural secret “truths” from a universally recognized standard (the bible). Other factors were the new invention of the printing press that blindsided government and church authorities from censuring their use before it was too late. The other thing was the versizing of scripture in the mid 1500’s – not surprisingly by an enterprising book and soon to be bible publisher business man - Robert L Estienne (no doubt another insider). [ed: I started this off tongue and cheek but I am on a roll and want to see where this goes…]

Once the bible was given a widely accepted chapter and verse indicy/number convention by Robert I Estienne in 1551 AD (a Catholic book/bible publisher turned Evangelical heretic - no doubt made wealthy by his publishing bibles as manifestos for religious revolution) the bible could be sliced and diced in any desired way. That is, the versation of the bible made it easy for every imaginable hobbyist of scripture (even if he could hardly read with comprehension) to create any new religion du-jur from verses popular with the bourgeois that had the same texture and taste of orthodox “Christianity” (e.g. Catholicism) but relied on ‘secret’ hidden interpretations too sublime for the “ignorant papists” to fathom (very Gnostic sounding and very Lutherian). And no doubt Luther finally found his cure for scrupulosity in the opium of a bible that if studied deeply enough “by the numbers” (the odd and unlucky ones no doubt) and while under the gloom of alcohol and guilt about being unchaste could now be made to justify any wild idea. Perhaps even a statement like (paraphrasing a composition of Lutherian ideas): ‘sin and sin boldly since God’s grace is greater than any sin and God hates a person who does not know the value of grace by not sinning really really badly to gain that experience’. [ed: running with this…]

In essence a new neo-Christian religion becomes almost a matter of a random toss of the dice over selected key verse numbers one wants to retain as sacrosanct. This would make it literally “child’s play” to invent all new teachings by random paring of verses out of context and make use of ostensibly hidden and secret (Gno)wledge for just about any new christian-like religion du-jour. Thus a neo-secular druid could thread and mosaic together any combination of free-form scripture verses to arrive an any new tower of babel of conflicted ideas that might appeal to one’s whim. The agility of the concept is seen in how rapidly it could accommodate reconstructing any number of “yet another denomination” every time the prior system was attacked by the “papists” as heretical (or by competing Protestant clerics who had invested skin in an earlier version). Or it could be a pure business decision when the idea petered out and the tithing base lost interest in paying the up-line its vig or it all fell to earth under the severity of gravity of error. The beauty is that when the new neo-christian religion du-jour is pressured or attacked as heretical the bourgeois could always be played through the age old class-envy/anti-authority demagoguery common to the class. Thus the sponsors always had cheap mercenaries who would be willing to die for their manufactured beliefs to fund the new revolution as a revolutionary force. But the bourgeois caught on and and now every mom-n-pop with a bible is opening their own bible-churches and the revenue base is shared with a 32,000 denominational down-line to demonstrate that its not scalable under a multi-level marketing structure and everyone is catching on… so much for secret knowledge…

Gnosticism - the perfect adaptable ideological and religious parasite - until it eats its own lunch…

Watch out Dan Brown I am on to your money making game and its my turn to crank out the pulp fiction novels now…

James

You might be able to make a lot of lettuce with these ideas.

 

[ERose]

Yes, the process may have gone something like this: gnostics borrowed ideas from christianity and judaism as well as paganism to form different strains of gnostic christianity which them cross-fertilized with biblical christianity to form early catholicism. Then with the contribution of imperial Rome in basilicas, orans ritual, processions, and baptism of the military, we then see imperial Catholicism.

Daniel,

The only influence that the gnostic heresy had on the Catholic church was giving it an opportunity to examine its own beliefs in greater detail to defend itself against this heresy. But that can be said about every heresy she has faced from the beginning.

God is very good at pulling good from evil. The heresy being evil while through combating this evil the Church learns a little bit more about itself and what it believes.

 

[ERose]

Yes there were influences from several sources impacting early Christianity and some are recorded in scripture such as Judaism, Gnosticism, then paganism, Roman imperialism, Platonism and neo-Platonism. There was Jewish Ebionite influence in the pseudo-Clementine literature.

The question regarding chrism oil following baptism, is whether or not it is described in the sacred scripture. If not, then its use by gnostics could have been drawn from the OT but its combination with baptism was either invented by them or borrowed from other Christians who also invented the practice drawing perhaps from the OT use of oil anointing.

The problem with your assertion is that a general gnostic belief was that the OT God was evil (a.k.a. Demiurge). I would find it hard to believe that gnostics picked up a practice from the OT and use especially if it was commanded by a God they considered evil.

Not every practice or belief we as Catholics have is in the Sacred Scriptures. We have what is called Sacred Tradition, which the Holy Bible is part of, that is not completely found in the Bible. So just because it isn’t in the Bible doesn’t mean that it wasn’t practised by the early Christians. It just means that it isn’t in the Bible. Gnosticism in all of its shapes and forms would be classified as minor heresies because their followers were never found in great quantity. Arianism now that was a major heresy, but not gnosticism.

 

[ERose]

Oh my - you are giving me more encouragement to further pursue my new tongue-n-cheek theory that Protestantism was all a result of a secret fringe Gnostic loose knit cult hiding in the monasteries waiting for opportunities to come out of the closet. It was all part of a huge secret society network (let’s toss in free masons too) conspiracy that finally saw its chance to re-host itself into the state governments (and thereby fund itself) who’s leaders wanted autonomy from Rome. The key was an opportunistic confluence of events that all were expertly exploited by opportunists who knew how to integrate all the circumstances. The key was inventing the adaptable Rosetta stone of “sola scriptura” that through private interpretation can be made to regenerate at whim new apparently scriptural secret “truths” from a universally recognized standard (the bible). Other factors were the new invention of the printing press that blindsided government and church authorities from censuring their use before it was too late. The other thing was the versizing of scripture in the mid 1500’s – not surprisingly by an enterprising book and soon to be bible publisher business man - Robert L Estienne (no doubt another insider). [ed: I started this off tongue and cheek but I am on a roll and want to see where this goes…]

Once the bible was given a widely accepted chapter and verse indicy/number convention by Robert I Estienne in 1551 AD (a Catholic book/bible publisher turned Evangelical heretic - no doubt made wealthy by his publishing bibles as manifestos for religious revolution) the bible could be sliced and diced in any desired way. That is, the versation of the bible made it easy for every imaginable hobbyist of scripture (even if he could hardly read with comprehension) to create any new religion du-jur from verses popular with the bourgeois that had the same texture and taste of orthodox “Christianity” (e.g. Catholicism) but relied on ‘secret’ hidden interpretations too sublime for the “ignorant papists” to fathom (very Gnostic sounding and very Lutherian). And no doubt Luther finally found his cure for scrupulosity in the opium of a bible that if studied deeply enough “by the numbers” (the odd and unlucky ones no doubt) and while under the gloom of alcohol and guilt about being unchaste could now be made to justify any wild idea. Perhaps even a statement like (paraphrasing a composition of Lutherian ideas): ‘sin and sin boldly since God’s grace is greater than any sin and God hates a person who does not know the value of grace by not sinning really really badly to gain that experience’. [ed: running with this…]

In essence a new neo-Christian religion becomes almost a matter of a random toss of the dice over selected key verse numbers one wants to retain as sacrosanct. This would make it literally “child’s play” to invent all new teachings by random paring of verses out of context and make use of ostensibly hidden and secret (Gno)wledge for just about any new christian-like religion du-jour. Thus a neo-secular druid could thread and mosaic together any combination of free-form scripture verses to arrive an any new tower of babel of conflicted ideas that might appeal to one’s whim. The agility of the concept is seen in how rapidly it could accommodate reconstructing any number of “yet another denomination” every time the prior system was attacked by the “papists” as heretical (or by competing Protestant clerics who had invested skin in an earlier version). Or it could be a pure business decision when the idea petered out and the tithing base lost interest in paying the up-line its vig or it all fell to earth under the severity of gravity of error. The beauty is that when the new neo-christian religion du-jour is pressured or attacked as heretical the bourgeois could always be played through the age old class-envy/anti-authority demagoguery common to the class. Thus the sponsors always had cheap mercenaries who would be willing to die for their manufactured beliefs to fund the new revolution as a revolutionary force. But the bourgeois caught on and and now every mom-n-pop with a bible is opening their own bible-churches and the revenue base is shared with a 32,000 denominational down-line to demonstrate that its not scalable under a multi-level marketing structure and everyone is catching on… so much for secret knowledge…

Gnosticism - the perfect adaptable ideological and religious parasite - until it eats its own lunch…

Watch out Dan Brown I am on to your money making game and its my turn to crank out the pulp fiction novels now…

James

James,

I love you man but I did not understand a word of this response. I am not defending gnosticism in this thread if that is what you think I am doing. Read my other posts on this thread. We are on the same side here.

 

[CentralFLJames]

James,

I love you man but I did not understand a word of this response. I am not defending gnosticism in this thread if that is what you think I am doing. Read my other posts on this thread. We are on the same side here.

No, ERose, I did not mean to imply that you supported Gnosticism in any way!
It was just late at night and I used your comments as a springboard to capture some ideas I had for a good fairy tale. It was more directed at lampooning the legion of assumptions and conjectures in this OP than anything else.

James

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

The problem with your assertion is that a general gnostic belief was that the OT God was evil (a.k.a. Demiurge). I would find it hard to believe that gnostics picked up a practice from the OT and use especially if it was commanded by a God they considered evil.

Not every practice or belief we as Catholics have is in the Sacred Scriptures. We have what is called Sacred Tradition, which the Holy Bible is part of, that is not completely found in the Bible. So just because it isn’t in the Bible doesn’t mean that it wasn’t practised by the early Christians. It just means that it isn’t in the Bible. Gnosticism in all of its shapes and forms would be classified as minor heresies because their followers were never found in great quantity. Arianism now that was a major heresy, but not gnosticism.

There were many strains of gnosticism. The gnostic gospel of Philip relates the chrism oil to the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden, also OT, and ties the oil to baptism as part of the ritual. It is interesting that Basil of Cesarea in “On the Holy Spirit,” admits that chrismation in baptism was not part of sacred scripture but part of a secret tradition/teaching along with triune immersion, sign of the cross, etc.

Gnosticism was in fact a major threat beginning in the first century through at least the 5th century. Many of the early church fathers either came from gnosticism or were influenced by its pervasive presence throughout the empire and especially in Syria (Marcion) and North Africa, Alexandria, Egypt (Valentinus).

Arianism began at a later stage and did in fact contribute to the title of Mary as “Mother of God” which then led to further elevation, naming of churches after her, etc. This was done at the Council of Ephesus in 445 AD to offset the Arian denial of Jesus’ divinity.

 

[Truthstalker]

We are on the same side here.

What side is that? It seems the Catholic response is rather incoherent and ill-informed, speaking as an admittedly biased observer.

One of my spare time activities is reading Augustine. While he devotes pots of ink to repelling Manicheism, his actions regarding the mother of his son and his attitudes towards marriage are suspiciously close to gnostic perspectives regarding the evil of the flesh, though he cloaks it in Christian terminology in works such as “On the Good of Marriage”. He was open to the idea that unfallen man would not have had sexual intercourse in order to procreate. His attitudes tie directly to Catholic problems regarding the discipline of celibacy, which has been touched on in this thread. Elders and overseers are commanded, normatively, to be married and to have children they have raised well. The Catholic obsession with celibacy and its recurrent problems and scandals demonstrate gnostic influence. God does not gift all to be celibate whom the Church demands to be celibate.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Elders and overseers are commanded, normatively, to be married and to have children they have raised well.

The Catholic obsession with celibacy and its recurrent problems and scandals demonstrate gnostic influence. God does not gift all to be celibate whom the Church demands to be celibate.

Baloney. There is no such commandment for the ecclesial members to me married!
Utter hogwash.

James

 

[Truthstalker]

Baloney. There is no such commandment for the ecclesial members to me married!
Utter hogwash.

James

I guess 1 Tim 3:1-7 is hogwash. Note especially verses 2 and 4.

And then there is Titus 1:6.

I guess the words of an apostle are not good enough for you

 

[Truthstalker]

And then there is 1 Cor 9:5. Paul claimed the right to take along a wife like the other apostles. Paul had a right to a wife, and the example of the other apostles was that they not only were married, but they took their wives along. In contrast to this apostolic right and custom, the Catholic Church today follows a gnostic-based custom. In the OT, the priests were married. The reformers rightfully restored marriage to the clergy.

.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I guess 1 Tim 3:1-7 is hogwash. Note especially verses 2 and 4.

And then there is Titus 1:6.

I guess the words of an apostle are not good enough for you

The words of an apostle are good enough for me but only a person wearing Protestants lens would see those verses as being a mandate to marry. OMG, some of you Protestants never never cease to amaze me in how you back project your neo-Christian perspective of a secular church to make the apostles appear like married Protestant ministers. It wasn’t like that at all.

This is classic eisegesis Truthstalker - you are seeing things you want to see.

First of all you need to accept some terms. Presbyters/elders are equivalent to what Catholics call “priests” and were ordained. They preached and taught the flock & administered sacraments. The various Bible translations will often mix the terms Elder, Presbyter, Overseer, Bishop, Shepherd, Pastor interchangeably but there was a difference between the ecclesial roles of what we call today bishop and priest. There is a different anointing associated with a bishop since only this level can ordain new priests and bishops.

Also note that the scripture writers avoided using the term “priest” at this time of the early Church history since they were unsure precisely how to organize the Church and because they did not want Jews to revert it back to a pure Judiac form of ecclesial structure. The term priest was initially avoided so Jews would not try to revert it back to a full Judiac high priest temple form of worship again. The history bears out though that the church hiearchy evolves rapidly into a bishop-priest-deacon structure ( like the Catholic Church has - quite naturally since we are the same original apostolic Church.

Apostles having the highest ecclesial rank are bishops – the only ecclesial rank that can ordain their successors.

Ref for terminology comparisons: Acts 15:6,23; 1 Timothy 4:14, 5:22; 1 Timothy 5:17; James 5:13-15

Here is the Titus verse you gave:

Titus 1:6
For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, 6 namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion

With respect to the bit about “the husband of one wife” this is not to be taken as a imperative to be married by any means. This is simply saying that a man, if married, must have only 1 wife to prevent scandals (i.e. in a monagamous relationship not living with another 2nd women or mistress by being divorce etc.). This is also not a requirement to have children but rather saying that if one does have children they must be well behaved. The idea here is just common sense things to not cause scandal through one’s own family. It’s the same old thing then as now - ‘why would anyone be inclined to take instruction from a church leader who could not keep his own household in order’?

Also recollect that The new Church came about quite suddenly. Some of the apostles and disciples were already married. Paul makes it very clear that the preference is not to marry but clearly they are not going to tell anyone to go get a divorce. It is only after the church gets established that the celibacy discipline is self imposed as subsequent generations start replacing the original leaders.

The next verse you reference:

*1 Tim 3:1-7
It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), 6 and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. 7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
*

Again, here this is just common sense sort of advice that Paul is giving for married men who are called to be bishops. Paul wants no room for scandals and wants high credibility. So so if a person is married it must be to one woman. This could relate to not divorced as well. Let’s also not forget that the gentiles were a bit on the wild side of the spectrum compared to the Jews and some had shacked up with multiple spouses or had taken more than one spouse (recall the woman at the well story of 5 husbands). This is all just “boilerplate” common sense advise given by Paul and is NOT intended to be a punch list of MUST HAVES. Clearly if a man is not married or is married but has no children he can be installed as an overseer. Clearly a widower would be acceptable too.

For goodness sake the man (Paul) giving the advise was unmarried and advised others to not marry.

1 Corinthians 7:7-9
For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

The Church later established the discipline to remain celibate and unmarried but its a discipline not a hard and fast dogma.

Back to the OP - If anyone wants to call celibate priesthood gnostic then Paul was a closet Gnostic since he was big on celibacy and not defiling oneself with women…

James

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

not DEFILING oneself with women…

James

Where is this in Paul’s writing?