Jesus is not a legend

[Publisher]

And how good a job will we do being Christ’s hands, feet, lips, etc if we’re each making it up for ourselves as we go?

It’s a great reflection as a call to mission, but it’s a lousy theological description of God (if that’s how you’re taking it). Christ doesn’t LACK those things, He’s just called us to be so joined to Him that ours are His. Part of becoming so joined is surrendering our imagined mastery of perceiving reality from falsehood.

But there I go arguing again. Do we have a deal or no?

Friend I spend time in prayer each morning, as well as scripture study, then enter into Meeting again before I get ready for work. I pray each day that God will open my mind and heart to His Will and to help me to understand the Mystery of faith. Each morning and evening I seek Him on how I can show His mercy and how I can share in His incarnation.

I seek Him in the Silence, to understand how He moves in this world. To know Him in this world.

I don’t know how much a “deal” it is for me…it’s a daily exercise…but sure…we “have a deal”.

 

[Publisher]

If you mean to tell me that their heresy originated from the Apostles, then please show me. Here at CAF we should avoid making assertions that we cannot prove. It is a sign of weakness.

Friend, no need to be 'obtuse"…you know I am not suggesting their “heresy” originated with the apostles…no more than your “orthodoxy” originated with the apostles…each of the early sects sought to understand what they had come to believe was the “apostles teachings”…as I said…other than Paul, we have no writings of an apostle.

Both the “heretical” sects and those who came to call themselves “orthodox” used Paul’s writings to interpret who Jesus of Nazareth was…both the “heretics” and “orthodox” claimed a direct lineage to the apostles.

It makes no difference to me whether you accept Johannine authorship…I know it means something to you…again…I no need to be “obtuse” by restating something you “want” me to have said, instead of what I really said.

 

[rom422]

Better idea…why don’t you pick up “Lost Christianities” and “Lost Scriptures” and read them for youself then you’ll have the references to review as in depth as you like?

I am engaged in a discussion with you, not with Bart Ehrman. So I want your examples, not his. Besides, I don’t want to have to refute an entire book, when all I wanted was one example. Why don’t you just give me your best example of a lie deliberately made by one or more of the Church Fathers. If it is too much trouble getting a link for the document, just tell me the name of the Church Father, the title of the book, chapter, section, etc., so that I can locate it. This will give me and the readers of this thread a better idea of the strength of your claim.

As I said…I’m not out to change your faith tradition affilliation…I’m offering another opinion that for me, has as much validity and historical ‘proof’…if not more so…than the “proto-orthodox/catholic” claims of the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

Your opinion has as much validity and historical proof? Then please show me your proofs. So far you have not given me any proof that the fourth gospel was not an eyewitness account, nor that it was written by someone other than the Apostle John. You have expressed skepticism, doubt and denial, but no proof. Also, don’t forget that rejection is not the same as refutation. You may reject the arguments of the ECF, if you want, but that does not mean that you have refuted them. So, please add a little more substance to your claims by giving real evidences, with online references that we can verify (if available).

Since I don’t believe thatr the apostles ‘passed’ down their teachings to the bishops priests and deacons any more than I beleive the apostles passed down their teachings directly to the leaders of the Gnostic groups and other sects who claim to have received their teachings directly from the apostles…that really isn’t "proof’ to me.

Then what do you believe, and why? Christ gave a mandate to preach the gospel, or the good news of our salvation, to all the apostles. If they did not pass down Christ’s teachings to their successors, then are you claiming that the Apostles failed to carry on the mission that Christ entrusted to them?

Question…why is it “proof” the Catholics have the teachings of the apostles becasus the ECF’s claim “succession” but it’s not “proof” for the Gnostics and other sects when they made the same claims? They too claimed to get their teachings directly from Paul, Peter, John and Mark as well.

Anybody can make a claim. But claims have to be proved, you know. So, the important thing is not merely to have made a claim, but to be able to substantiate or give evidence for one’s claim. For example, if you want to claim that you are the rightful successor to the throne, then you should present your credentials and prove that you are the rightful heir. This is true as well when it comes to religious authority. In fact, the Gnostics were very active during the early days of the Church. They were competing for credibility against the successors of St. Peter and the other Apostles. They, too, claimed that they had “apostolic succession.” They also wrote alternative gospels (the “lost books”) claiming that they were from the Apostles. But – as history shows – the Gnostics lost the battle for credibility, and orthodox Christianity became the victorious winner and gained more followers. Here we are greatly indebted to the ECF. Due largely to their efforts and their writings, the early Christian faithful were able to distinguish truth from error, and to recognize where true authority and Christian leadership lies. They were able to tell that the true Church founded by Christ was the Catholic Church; so, the numerous Gnostic groups and their brand of Christianity slowly faded away to become what Bart Ehrman calls “Lost Christianities.”

cont.

 

[rom422]

Your responses are welcome…interesting to read…just don’t hold “water” for me…the only way the claims of your group can be substantiated is to claim the “heretics” lied about their own apostolic succession. It just a big vicious circle it seems to me.

Publisher, a lie is a deliberate attempt to distort the truth; it is an attempt to deceive someone by stating as true something that he knows to be false. Therefore, every lie is a sin. However, a person who is stating something false is not necessarily lying. For he could just be mistaken. In other words, he is not necessarily trying to deceive someone, but is himself deceived. For this reason, let us be careful to condemn someone as a liar. Unless we can read the mind and intentions of the speaker, we do not know if a person who is stating something false, is lying.

So, I will not say that the heretics lied about their own apostolic succession. I’d rather say that they just *failed *to give adequate evidence for their claim. In the Prescription Against Heretics, Ch. 32 (which I cited before) we can see Tertullian challenging the Gnostics to present their credentials. See newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm . That means, Tertullian was challenging them to show their evidence (or church records) that their bishop had been ordained by another validly ordained bishop – for that is the only way that you can have a valid “apostolic succession.” Apparently, the Gnostic leaders failed in this regard, so many Christian faithful stopped listening to them.

Since I do not believe those leaders which came to be seen as the “fathers” of the Orthodox/Catholic churches had any more authority than the Gnostics or other sects of the time…their claims isn’t as much “proof” of those claims as it is “proof” for me Christianity was diverse in belief and practice from the 2nd century on than it is today.

Like you, I have no access to ancient church records anymore. But unlike you, I still believe that the bishops of the Catholic Church (which includes some of the Early Church Fathers) have Apostolic Succession. On this issue I can only say that history is on my side. For we know that if the various Gnostic groups and heretics that were so abundant during the advent of Christianity lost most of their adherents and followership, it is because the early Christian faithful saw the credentials of their bishops, and were convinced that they were following the one and only true Church of Christ.

 

[Publisher]

Publisher, a lie is a deliberate attempt to distort the truth; it is an attempt to deceive someone by stating as true something that he knows to be false. Therefore, every lie is a sin. However, a person who is stating something false is not necessarily lying. For he could just be mistaken. In other words, he is not necessarily trying to deceive someone, but is himself deceived. For this reason, let us be careful to condemn someone as a liar. Unless we can read the mind and intentions of the speaker, we do not know if a person who is stating something false, is lying.

So, I will not say that the heretics lied about their own apostolic succession. I’d rather say that they just *failed *to give adequate evidence for their claim. In the Prescription Against Heretics, Ch. 32 (which I cited before) we can see Tertullian challenging the Gnostics to present their credentials. See newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm . That means, Tertullian was challenging them to show their evidence (or church records) that their bishop had been ordained by another validly ordained bishop – for that is the only way that you can have a valid “apostolic succession.” Apparently, the Gnostic leaders failed in this regard, so many Christian faithful stopped listening to them.

Like you, I have no access to ancient church records anymore. But unlike you, I still believe that the bishops of the Catholic Church (which includes some of the Early Church Fathers) have Apostolic Succession. On this issue I can only say that history is on my side. For we know that if the various Gnostic groups and heretics that were so abundant during the advent of Christianity lost most of their adherents and followership, it is because the early Christian faithful saw the credentials of their bishops, and were convinced that they were following the one and only true Church of Christ.

Friend, I have no interest in debating your position…if your position on the matter makes sense to you, then that is great…your position has no credibility for me. No matter how one “cuts it”, your position relys on the “supernatural”. While I believe God is at work in His creation…He is at work by natural means, why else would He establish the natual laws of the universe to govern creation.

I can see the Hand of God in history without “miracles’ and “magic”. For me my position calls me to a profundity of seeking that 'magic” just doesn’t.

You believe in a “supernatural” history of Christianity…I don’t.

I don’t believe the apostles of Jesus of Nazareth had much to do with the establishment of Christianity as we know it. Paul, who was not an “original” apostle is the true “creator” of Christianity.

His views, interpreted by both “gnostic” and “proto-catholic/orthodox” sects sought to interpret the life of Jesus of Nazareth. He must have been a remarkable man…so remarkable that God was determined to be the One who revealed Himself in Jesus ins such a way as to reveal His true Nature. That “struggle” throughout history to seek to understand the “how” and the 'why" of “God in Christ” established Christianity as a separate religous tradition outside of Judaism…but only AFTER the fall of Jerusalem in 70CE.

God has sought to reveal Himself in His creation by the natural laws He established. Creation is holy, sacred and thru it we can “join” with that “Divine Mind” and realize it is our “connection” to “that of God” in each of us.

If you are comfortable with your faith traditon in “interpreting” the life and message of Jesus of Nazareth, wonderful!!! Such “interpretations” make no sense to me…and that is why I am not Catholic…my faith has to make sense with the world I live in.

I live in an extremely privelged society. I live in “wealth” most of the world only dreams of…I have a modest home, fantastic garden however, middle income employment…but to the most of the world I am wealthy…and I do consider myself blessed beyond words.

My understanding of God must and only be seen thru the lens of those I meet…They ARE the face of God…let’s face it…I am a “mystic” at heart…but my world view makes sense to me…as yours must to you.

There is not just one understanding of Truth. Truth is Truth…but we are finite and not all of us are cookie cutters of one another…Truth is interpreted thru out experience and “accident” of our birth.

God is Mystery, and until the “dark glass” we all see thru is no longer obscuring the Eternal, we will always differ. Unity is not in how we articulate our personal beleifs, but in how we relate to one another.

God is only known Inwardly and in our neighbor. It’s a lifetime Search and Journey.

My understanding of history makes sense to me…I can see God’s Finger in it…if you see His Finger in your understanding of history as told by your church…wonderful. How you treat your neighbor, which is the same criterial given to me, is the true test of how well we each understand God…I lack so much…thankfully I have a lifetime to Seek…and an Eternity to Search.and One Day Understand.

Peace to you friend.

 

[rom422]

Stating that people are sexually immoral and engage in all manner of evil practices when not true is a “lie”.

How did you know that it wasn’t true? How did you know that nobody practiced sexual immorality during the early days of Christianity? Why would St. Paul be admonishing the early Christians, “Fly fornication” (1 Cor. 6:18), if the practice was not observed then? Didn’t you say in Post #55 that St. Paul was an authentic apostle?

If the ECF’s found it appropriate to “lie” about their moral conduct to bolster their own claims…how is that not relevant?

First, you have not given evidence that any of the ECFs lied. Second, accusing the ECF without presenting any proof is bashing; and bashing here at CAF is irrelevant in any discussion.

 

[rom422]

Friend, if you are comfortable believing Iraneaes and Tertullians testimony which really has no historical proof other than their claim to have known the apostles…then discount the very same claims by stating that the other sects of Christianity abandoned the apostles teachings…perhaps it was Iranaeus and Tertullian who abandoned the apostles teachings…each are making the same claims…each are within similar time frames…each sect claimed to be the “authentic” expression of the teaching of the apostles…yet we have no real record of any apostles teachings other than Pauls authentic letters…which the other sects also used to bolster their own claims. Christianity was a minor Jewish sect until the fall of Jerusalem in 70CE…the only writings that came out of the first century by an “authentic” apostle was Paul…the other books and letters that claim apostolic names are either anonymous…forgeries…as is 2 Peter, and 2 Timothy or written by someone bearing a common name of that era such as “James” or “John the Elder”.

All the above can easily be dismissed as pure assertions without proof.

I simply do not find the evidence compelling to accept the claims of the ECF’s as anything more than the “winners” of the battle for the dominant form of Christianity…which developed into the Orthodox and Catholic bodies…and I’m very comfortable believing that and find it historical credible more than the Catholic/Orthodox claims.

Aha! I finally found something where I can agree with you. Yes, I fully agree that the Church Fathers were the victorious winners in the battle for credibility. The heretics lost credibility because they only made claims and assertions without proofs.

As I’ve said…there is another side and many of us have chosen to explore that “other side” and have not found it’s credibility stretched to breaking. I find the conservative claims lacking in credibility…my world doesn’t operate under the conditions I find expounded on. The views of Erhman, Pagels, Spong, Borg, Crossan, O’Grady, Mack seem more plausible…can’t help it…they just do.

That’s the problem. You need to find better spiritual and intellectual companions than those whom you cited. You need Christ, first of all, then you need St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, the other ECFs, the saints and doctors of the Catholic Church.

I just can’t get my mind around the “conservative” take base on “faith stories” as historical fact.

Actually, many faith stories are historical. Those who reject faith stories are mostly lovers of myths and legends. For example, they believe the legend that miracles don’t happen, and the great myth that so-called “lost Christianities” are Christianities.

 

[AtomicB]

“Most scholars beleive that the oldest fragment of the New Testament we have is the John Rylands Manuscript, which contains a portion of the book of John (18:31-33, 37-38). This fragment dates from about A.D. 125-130, (1) which is less than 40 years after John wrote it. (2) Other early manuscripts of the Bible continue to be found.”

consider.org/library/text.htm

 

[rom422]

Friend, no need to be 'obtuse"…you know I am not suggesting their “heresy” originated with the apostles…no more than your “orthodoxy” originated with the apostles…each of the early sects sought to understand what they had come to believe was the “apostles teachings”…as I said…other than Paul, we have no writings of an apostle.

Friend, no need to be “obtuse.” You know we have the writings of other apostles besides St. Paul. We have the books of St. John, and some epistles of St. Peter and St. James.

Both the “heretical” sects and those who came to call themselves “orthodox” used Paul’s writings to interpret who Jesus of Nazareth was…both the “heretics” and “orthodox” claimed a direct lineage to the apostles.

Yes, the heretics also claimed a direct lineage to the apostles. They just couldn’t prove it.

 

[rom422]

Friend, I have no interest in debating your position…if your position on the matter makes sense to you, then that is great…your position has no credibility for me. No matter how one “cuts it”, your position relys on the “supernatural”. While I believe God is at work in His creation…He is at work by natural means, why else would He establish the natual laws of the universe to govern creation.

It is true that God is at work in nature. But who are we to limit God’s activity only to what is natural? What would prevent Him from performing miracles when He wants to?

I can see the Hand of God in history without “miracles’ and “magic”. For me my position calls me to a profundity of seeking that 'magic” just doesn’t.

But there is miracle and magic in history. Isn’t it a great miracle that Christianity survived the terrors of the horrible Roman persecutions? Isn’t it a great miracle that Christianity is still alive while great human civilizations have fluorished and gone?

You believe in a “supernatural” history of Christianity…I don’t.

I don’t believe the apostles of Jesus of Nazareth had much to do with the establishment of Christianity as we know it. Paul, who was not an “original” apostle is the true “creator” of Christianity.

The “creator” of Christianity was the human Paul, not the divine Christ? That is even more supernatural than anything I’ve ever heard.

If you are comfortable with your faith traditon in “interpreting” the life and message of Jesus of Nazareth, wonderful!!! Such “interpretations” make no sense to me…and that is why I am not Catholic…my faith has to make sense with the world I live in.

If you have a flawed concept of historical data, then understandably our Catholic faith will not make sense to you.

My understanding of God must and only be seen thru the lens of those I meet…They ARE the face of God…let’s face it…I am a “mystic” at heart…but my world view makes sense to me…as yours must to you.

You claim that you are a mystic. I just pray that the misconceptions and half-truths you get from your favorite “scholars” do not turn you into a “mistake.”

There is not just one understanding of Truth. Truth is Truth…but we are finite and not all of us are cookie cutters of one another…Truth is interpreted thru out experience and “accident” of our birth.

God is Mystery, and until the “dark glass” we all see thru is no longer obscuring the Eternal, we will always differ. Unity is not in how we articulate our personal beleifs, but in how we relate to one another.

God is only known Inwardly and in our neighbor. It’s a lifetime Search and Journey.

My understanding of history makes sense to me…I can see God’s Finger in it…if you see His Finger in your understanding of history as told by your church…wonderful. How you treat your neighbor, which is the same criterial given to me, is the true test of how well we each understand God…I lack so much…thankfully I have a lifetime to Seek…and an Eternity to Search.and One Day Understand.

Peace to you friend.

And to you, too.

 

[manualman]

Friend I spend time in prayer each morning, as well as scripture study, then enter into Meeting again before I get ready for work. I pray each day that God will open my mind and heart to His Will and to help me to understand the Mystery of faith. Each morning and evening I seek Him on how I can show His mercy and how I can share in His incarnation.

I seek Him in the Silence, to understand how He moves in this world. To know Him in this world.

I don’t know how much a “deal” it is for me…it’s a daily exercise…but sure…we “have a deal”.

Again, you’re changing the subject. I offered a deal in which you’d ask God (in faith, not in challenge) if there are direct ways outside of yourself that He’s directly revealed Himself to the world and if there are if He’d help you to find those ways and know which can be relied upon. You responded that you already listen in the interior daily…
I hope your interior listening is better than the exterior!

I’m challenging you to watch and ask for EXTERIOR manifestations of God in this world. If you approach it as God needing to prove himself to you, nothing will happen. But if you approach Him humbly as one who seeks to be transformed, renewed and protected from harm, you will get an answer. A surprising one.

I’m not questioning your sincerity, really I’m not. I’m suggesting that mere sincerity isn’t enough. Deism is barely theism at all. God offers you so much more. Be open to receiving the gifts!

And you haven’t made a challenge to me yet. If you do the above, I’ll take you up on a book suggestion or whatever. Let me know. Thanks!