Searching without a church?

[AmateurPianist]

I grew up Pentecostal, my father is ordained in the Assemblies of God (more properly, it’s Italian branch, the Assemblee di Dio in Italia), so I can see where you’re coming from.

Although I list Assembly of God as my denomination, I am not hard-core Assembly of God. Neither is my church for that matter. As a matter of fact I am not totally comfortable with some aspects of hard-core Assembly of God if you know what I mean.

I am Assembly of God in the sense that the church in my community where I believe God would have me is Assembly of God. If I lived in a different community it might be different for me.

So I have no particular interest in keeping you “Assembly of God” as a Catholic might have in reverse to a Catholic that is considering “defecting”. But allow me to share my heart a little here.

I’ve a passion for history. I have a personal theory that the key to understanding anything and everything is by studying its history.

Ah the study of history thing. I have studied it too, although I am by no means an expert of history.

But I am sure you have encountered what I call the “standard Protestand spin” and the “standard Catholic spin” of history.

Have you considered the possibility of false dichotomy, that being that some sort of variant between the standard spins is actually what is closest to the truth.

If Christianity really was corrupted and needed reform, then there must have been a period in which it was true, accurate, and pure. A corruption must have occurred then several hundred years after its onset.

And of course that being the standard “Protestant Spin”. I really don’t like the word “corrupted” though. There is a much softer version that I from my personal study of Scripture find more defensible. And that would be that there have always been (both Old and New Testament) periods of time where God’s people have drifted from God’s design and periods where God brings them back closer to his design…followed by drifting from His design followed by bringing back closer to his design.

To give a banal example - if Communion is purely symbolic, like the Assemblies of God teaches - then the early Church must have believed that, and a corruption like the real presence must have been an addition hundreds of years later.

Serious question here. Does Assembly of God believe “purely symbolic” in a “hard” sense (those organizations that believe in any type of “Real Presence” are wrong and heretical and any belief in any real presence is just not compatible with Assembly of God. Or is it a “soft” sense (we find no reason to believe in a Real Presence but we do not hold this as an essential and neither do we condemn other organizations that believe in a “Real Presence” as heretical. I sort of sense it is in a “soft sense”. I do know that in my local church it is a topic that has not been addressed either way.

For the record I do not believe the “real presence” to be a “corruption”. On the contrary I find it possible, maybe true in a sense, but difficult to prove either way. From my study I find the earliest church and Scripture both “approach” the communion table as though in “some sense” it “is” the body and blood of Jesus Christ. This “some sense” though might be as minimal as just the approach itself or possibly (but unproven) as large as some type of physical and/or chemical transformation. Hard to say. So I go with the minimal (that being the approach itself) as that being which is truly important in this all and the rest being possible but not essential.

The way I have reconciled this with Assemblies is that I do not sense/believe they find my beliefs wrong/heretical. So as long as that is the case I will not blow out of proportion any differences of nuances of belief we may have here.

It’s not so. Zwingli asserts the first real major defense of memoralism. That made me ask serious, serious questions. So while living our lives in a Christian way is an imperative (which I often fail), accuracy I feel is a must, too. Sound doctrine.

Well this gets back to the issue of metrics…and what is the right question to ask as far as what church I attend. To me the right question is "When God looks at the various “churches” in my community which ones are closer to his design and which ones might have drifted somewhat. For metrics I find basically two…doctrine and practice.

I tend to sort doctrine into three categories: (1) Doctrine about the Godhead, (2) Moral Doctrine (3) Other. You may come to different conclusions but from my study of history and Scripture (Jude - 2 Peter) that what is really important here both in Scripture and history is 1 and 2. Thus I can kick off the island morally relative liberal Protestant and groups that teach new inventions concerning Jesus Christ and the Godhead. Remaining on the island are the conservative and Evangelical Protestants, the Catholics, and the Orthodox. The stuff in “other” needs further research and prioritization.

But I also find practice to be equally as important in the gospels (at least the red letter words leave me to this conclusion). And I think our church is pretty good at it, at least taking the Great Commission to out community and to the planet. which as I recall is “red letter words”. For me anyway the default is stay where you are at unless a compelling reason otherwise. And I have just not found a compelling reason.

Anyway…that is my heart.

That is my heart anyway.

 

[Rawb]

Haha well I’m 20…

I’m 23, so I was being a bit facetious about ‘youthful enthusiasm’. I was 18 when I converted to Catholicism, six years or so ago. I never had one of those “not active” periods in Catholicism. My story might be a little strange because I went from being an extremely active Roman Catholic to being a very active Orthodox Christian. I had almost one of those “St. Paul” conversions to Orthodoxy lol.

he essentially preached power-puff Christianity. “Christianity is a person,” “God loves you” - nothing really of substance.

Ah yes, that type of theology and doctrine is more like pop psychology. It’s ultimately very shallow and unsatisfying. That was sort of my last Protestant Pastor’s shtick as well (and his really was a shtick - he would cry every time he said these things. It made everything he said sound contrived and fake. Drove me nuts)

Actually now that I think about it he was A of G too, but we weren’t a very Pentecostal A of G. We didn’t have speaking in tongues or slaying the spirit or anything, we were more Evangelical in practice.

I think I’ve narrowed it down to more or less either Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or Lutheranism. Admittedly I haven’t studied much Anglicanism, though it’s worth a look. There needs to be a nifty compendium of the Church Fathers that give a theological issue and give the quotes on what they say. I’m always impressed by the Fathers, though. Brilliant people. And they say that Christianity has no logic! I’d say that early Christian writings easily are on par with some of the Classic texts.

Well, then you’ve got your first steps in order. Roman Catholicism, Orthodox, Lutheranism or Anglicanism. We’ve got a plan!

Personally, if it were me, I’d probably now move onto examining what the Early Church taught. I’d probably start with the Didache. This site has the ECF’s writings for you, and it looks like it may be in chronological order. After I had a vague idea of what I think what the Early Church Fathers taught I’d start looking more seriously at what those four churches that are possibilities teach, realizing that I only have what I think the Early Church taught. I may have to adjust my beliefs based off of correction maybe. That’s where it’s going to get tricky, you have to discern where those churches are wrong and where you are.

As for where you’re going to go to church, that’s tricky as well. Maybe every Saturday night write each church on a slip of paper, stick it in a hat, and pull it out? Or maybe have them on rotation? Week 1 you go to Mass, Week 2 to Divine Liturgy, etc.

 

[dzheremi]

May I ask why Oriental and not Eastern Orthodoxy?

Sure. I am still very new at everything, but I do detect a certain difference in mindset between the OO and the EO. Not sure exactly what to call it, but there does seem to be more acceptance of variation within the OO than the EO. For instance, the absolutely astounding Biblical canon of the Ethiopians seems to present no real problems for the Copts, even though their own Biblical canon is much more narrow. Similarly, the Copts and the Syrians have enjoyed centuries of symbiosis, with the Copts adopting the Syrian fraction and the Syrians (at Deir el-Surian, anyway) adopting the Coptic hours. I like this kind of unity. I have also seen it in the EO church, with the Russians celebrating Georgian saints and vice-versa, but my point is that the landscape, in so far as practice is concerned, seems a bit more monolithic on the EO side. There’s Byzantine praxis (which I’ve never felt all that drawn to personally, as undeniably beautiful as it is), and if you don’t like that…well, there’s Byzantine praxis. Some of the philosophical positions taken in the EO tradition seem a little unnecessary (at best), too. Perhaps these are as a kind of safeguard against heresy, and that’s fine, but for me the examples of the Desert Fathers and the modern Coptic, Ethiopian and Syrian monastics are enough (I don’t really know as much about Armenian and Indian traditions, though I do like what I’ve read of St. Nerses Lambrontsi), and that’s generally a much simpler, more direct and less philosophized version of Orthodoxy. On Christological matters, I have not delved very deeply, but I do not see any problem in the traditional Cyrilian Christology of the Coptic church, which is the church I am investigating.

Plus, their fasting schedule…oh boy…if you can do that, you KNOW you can do anything! Their dedication to the martyrs and the saints is also something nearly unique in all of Christianity (not to put anyone else down, as such dedication is something of a hallmark of all apostolic Christianity; I mean that it is a matter of degree, and I know no church that honors the martyrs quite like the Coptic Orthodox do).

So, I don’t know…lots of reasons, really. I figure if I am meant to be somewhere else, I would be there and maybe it would be shown to me in some irrefutable way. As it is, the deeper I get into Coptic Orthodoxy, the more it seems to contain the true faith of the apostles. If I am wrong, let God Himself show me, and I’ll go somewhere else instead. Lord knows if it were all a matter of convenience or comfort, I would have gone Greek or Russian a long time ago.

 

[Della]

This is going to sound crazy and paradoxical (if you really love paradox you must read G. K. Chesterton), but one of the things that attracted me to the Catholic Church was the fact that one doesn’t need to be a genius or holy or smart or educated or one particular subgroup of people to be a member and the other was how well organized it is. I know. On the one hand it sounds like the Church just lets in anyone at all (which is true) and on the other that it demands certain things of it’s faithful (also true). IOW, it’s very human and sublimely divine, just like Christ. He welcomed sinners of the most notorious kind and yet was a stickler for God’s law. He founded a Church on Peter (a very changeable and seemingly untrustworthy person) and the other Apostles, none of them particuarly high up in society and on the other hand he calls Saul after he’s already established his Church to do a special job for it. If it had been organized along modern lines there would have been a hiring committee and papers written and funds drawn from the synogogue to do a proper study of the thing. But no, Jesus just threw his people into the deep end and let it roll from there, all the while gifting them so they could do what he had commanded them to do. I find it utterly amazing and charming, as I do our current pope, Benedict. He’s like that too, if you’ve noticed. He’s a deep academic and yet he’s very accessible. He’s no nonsense about the rules and regs and yet he’s gentle and approachable. I know not all popes have been good men like him, but it shows me that in this time of profound change and deep need, God has raised up his Church to meet the challenges in spite of sinners and bad decisions and laxity and all the other problems of the modern Church–as if none of those things existed before now. No, the Church is both human (very human) and divine, just like her Lord. She shines in her perfect divinity and suffers in her humanity, just as Jesus did. I just had to be a part of all that!

 

[wisdomseeker]

Hey guys. I was just wondering if any of you were ever in a situation where you were unchurched in a period where you were searching for the right church to attend.

I know we should always go to church, but if you don’t feel as if the church you’ve attended for years is right for you anymore, and look to find the truth, then what does one do?

Just curious on if you guys have gone through something similar.

I will dare to lead you in a right direction. How about search for that One Church built by Christ 2000 yrs ago and she is still here today? According to the promise of Christ Himself. Search for that 2000 yr old Church. there is nothing more joyfull that to find this Church. Which Church would you rather be? the one found by Christ or any found recently by man without the promise of Christ?

 

[Izdaari]

Although I list Assembly of God as my denomination, I am not hard-core Assembly of God. Neither is my church for that matter. As a matter of fact I am not totally comfortable with some aspects of hard-core Assembly of God if you know what I mean.

I am Assembly of God in the sense that the church in my community where I believe God would have me is Assembly of God. If I lived in a different community it might be different for me.

So I have no particular interest in keeping you “Assembly of God” as a Catholic might have in reverse to a Catholic that is considering “defecting”. But allow me to share my heart a little here.

Ah the study of history thing. I have studied it too, although I am by no means an expert of history.

But I am sure you have encountered what I call the “standard Protestand spin” and the “standard Catholic spin” of history.

Have you considered the possibility of false dichotomy, that being that some sort of variant between the standard spins is actually what is closest to the truth.

And of course that being the standard “Protestant Spin”. I really don’t like the word “corrupted” though. There is a much softer version that I from my personal study of Scripture find more defensible. And that would be that there have always been (both Old and New Testament) periods of time where God’s people have drifted from God’s design and periods where God brings them back closer to his design…followed by drifting from His design followed by bringing back closer to his design.

Serious question here. Does Assembly of God believe “purely symbolic” in a “hard” sense (those organizations that believe in any type of “Real Presence” are wrong and heretical and any belief in any real presence is just not compatible with Assembly of God. Or is it a “soft” sense (we find no reason to believe in a Real Presence but we do not hold this as an essential and neither do we condemn other organizations that believe in a “Real Presence” as heretical. I sort of sense it is in a “soft sense”. I do know that in my local church it is a topic that has not been addressed either way.

For the record I do not believe the “real presence” to be a “corruption”. On the contrary I find it possible, maybe true in a sense, but difficult to prove either way. From my study I find the earliest church and Scripture both “approach” the communion table as though in “some sense” it “is” the body and blood of Jesus Christ. This “some sense” though might be as minimal as just the approach itself or possibly (but unproven) as large as some type of physical and/or chemical transformation. Hard to say. So I go with the minimal (that being the approach itself) as that being which is truly important in this all and the rest being possible but not essential.

The way I have reconciled this with Assemblies is that I do not sense/believe they find my beliefs wrong/heretical. So as long as that is the case I will not blow out of proportion any differences of nuances of belief we may have here.

Well this gets back to the issue of metrics…and what is the right question to ask as far as what church I attend. To me the right question is "When God looks at the various “churches” in my community which ones are closer to his design and which ones might have drifted somewhat. For metrics I find basically two…doctrine and practice.

I tend to sort doctrine into three categories: (1) Doctrine about the Godhead, (2) Moral Doctrine (3) Other. You may come to different conclusions but from my study of history and Scripture (Jude - 2 Peter) that what is really important here both in Scripture and history is 1 and 2. Thus I can kick off the island morally relative liberal Protestant and groups that teach new inventions concerning Jesus Christ and the Godhead. Remaining on the island are the conservative and Evangelical Protestants, the Catholics, and the Orthodox. The stuff in “other” needs further research and prioritization.

But I also find practice to be equally as important in the gospels (at least the red letter words leave me to this conclusion). And I think our church is pretty good at it, at least taking the Great Commission to out community and to the planet. which as I recall is “red letter words”. For me anyway the default is stay where you are at unless a compelling reason otherwise. And I have just not found a compelling reason.

Anyway…that is my heart.

That is my heart anyway.

I am also an AG member, and I see things pretty much the same way.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I had almost one of those “St. Paul” conversions to Orthodoxy lol.

Let me guess. You were walking down the street when lightning flashed, the Lord appeared to you, and pointed toward an Orthodox parish and said ‘This is my church. Go here.’ Pretty awesome I’d say lol.

Ah yes, that type of theology and doctrine is more like pop psychology. It’s ultimately very shallow and unsatisfying. That was sort of my last Protestant Pastor’s shtick as well (and his really was a shtick - he would cry every time he said these things. It made everything he said sound contrived and fake. Drove me nuts)

Would you believe me if I said my pastor had those kidns of teary-eyed moments?
I think it works well for those who can’t get past the ‘milk’ stage. But otherwise, I just don’t feel satisfaction. I don’t want a pep talk.

Personally, if it were me, I’d probably now move onto examining what the Early Church taught. I’d probably start with the Didache. This site has the ECF’s writings for you, and it looks like it may be in chronological order. After I had a vague idea of what I think what the Early Church Fathers taught I’d start looking more seriously at what those four churches that are possibilities teach, realizing that I only have what I think the Early Church taught. I may have to adjust my beliefs based off of correction maybe. That’s where it’s going to get tricky, you have to discern where those churches are wrong and where you are.

Cool link, thanks. That’s what I’ve been more or less doing. It’s just difficult to do because there’s so many issues and so many topics. I might zero-in on the hot issues. I’ve also been reading some Church history books in general. I think they help explain why some of the differences have come up and in response to what.

As for where you’re going to go to church, that’s tricky as well. Maybe every Saturday night write each church on a slip of paper, stick it in a hat, and pull it out? Or maybe have them on rotation? Week 1 you go to Mass, Week 2 to Divine Liturgy, etc.

You laugh but I’ve been known to do stranger things. I’d probably actually consider the hat thing lol.

Some of the philosophical positions taken in the EO tradition seem a little unnecessary (at best), too. Perhaps these are as a kind of safeguard against heresy, and that’s fine, but for me the examples of the Desert Fathers and the modern Coptic, Ethiopian and Syrian monastics are enough (I don’t really know as much about Armenian and Indian traditions, though I do like what I’ve read of St. Nerses Lambrontsi), and that’s generally a much simpler, more direct and less philosophized version of Orthodoxy. On Christological matters, I have not delved very deeply, but I do not see any problem in the traditional Cyrilian Christology of the Coptic church, which is the church I am investigating.

That makes sense. I tend to like a little room myself. But from what I understand also is that the Christological difference between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox mostly has to do with a misunderstanding of terminology from the Eutychian controversy, right? Or is there more?

Plus, their fasting schedule…oh boy…if you can do that, you KNOW you can do anything! Their dedication to the martyrs and the saints is also something nearly unique in all of Christianity (not to put anyone else down, as such dedication is something of a hallmark of all apostolic Christianity; I mean that it is a matter of degree, and I know no church that honors the martyrs quite like the Coptic Orthodox do).

It doesn’t surprise me because they’re probably one of the more persecuted Christian churches in history. They are relentlessly attacked, harassed, and killed. Dedication to the martyrs only makes logical sense.

As it is, the deeper I get into Coptic Orthodoxy, the more it seems to contain the true faith of the apostles. If I am wrong, let God Himself show me, and I’ll go somewhere else instead. Lord knows if it were all a matter of convenience or comfort, I would have gone Greek or Russian a long time ago.

John 8:32

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I will dare to lead you in a right direction. How about search for that One Church built by Christ 2000 yrs ago and she is still here today? According to the promise of Christ Himself. Search for that 2000 yr old Church. there is nothing more joyfull that to find this Church. Which Church would you rather be? the one found by Christ or any found recently by man without the promise of Christ?

Well most certainly the former! But a lot of churches make that claim.

Ah the study of history thing. I have studied it too, although I am by no means an expert of history.

But I am sure you have encountered what I call the “standard Protestand spin” and the “standard Catholic spin” of history.

Have you considered the possibility of false dichotomy, that being that some sort of variant between the standard spins is actually what is closest to the truth.

It most probably is some kind of middle ground between the two.

Serious question here. Does Assembly of God believe “purely symbolic” in a “hard” sense (those organizations that believe in any type of “Real Presence” are wrong and heretical and any belief in any real presence is just not compatible with Assembly of God. Or is it a “soft” sense (we find no reason to believe in a Real Presence but we do not hold this as an essential and neither do we condemn other organizations that believe in a “Real Presence” as heretical. I sort of sense it is in a “soft sense”. I do know that in my local church it is a topic that has not been addressed either way.

Well the Italian AOG will tell you that it’s plain heretical and wrong, and worst of all - Catholic! As for hard vs soft in the States, my assumption would be is that if you quietly held that opinion, no one would really say anything, but if you tried to gain a position as an AOG minister, it would probably be incompatible.

But I also find practice to be equally as important in the gospels (at least the red letter words leave me to this conclusion). And I think our church is pretty good at it, at least taking the Great Commission to out community and to the planet. which as I recall is “red letter words”. For me anyway the default is stay where you are at unless a compelling reason otherwise. And I have just not found a compelling reason.

Well you know I believe that’s legitimate, and I don’t hold anything personally against the Assemblies of God. However, I do think ultimately that we are all called to find a church that is closest doctrinally to what the Lord intended. I want to do things correct. If that’s the AG, so be it. If it’s somewhere else, then I think I should follow that. I just can’t remain satisfied with ‘good enough.’ I want to find the fullness.

 

[dzheremi]

That makes sense. I tend to like a little room myself. But from what I understand also is that the Christological difference between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox mostly has to do with a misunderstanding of terminology from the Eutychian controversy, right? Or is there more?

I don’t exactly know what more there is, but I wouldn’t put it that way. Maybe if you mean that the Chalcedonians saw something of the Eutychian heresy in the non-Chalcedonian position (cf. the non-Chalcedonians finding the Christology of Chalcedon too similar to the Nestorian heresy), then I could see what you mean. But it is important to recognize that the Alexandrian Orthodox always stood against Eutyches. St. Pope Dioscoros actually excommunicated Eutyches (though that whole affair is a bit odd, because he was let back into the church on the condition that he repudiate his heresy, but it came up later after he’d been re-established, so he was re-excommunicated; HH Pope Shenouda III details this event, and non-Chalcedonian Christology in general in his booklet “The Nature of Christ”, 1999).

 

[AmateurPianist]

However, I do think ultimately that we are all called to find a church that is closest doctrinally to what the Lord intended. I want to do things correct. If that’s the AG, so be it. If it’s somewhere else, then I think I should follow that. I just can’t remain satisfied with ‘good enough.’ I want to find the fullness.

Fascinating.

I once had as my signature here 1 Thess. 5:21 - But examine everything carefully hold fast to that which is good.

So that raises the question “What is the process that God intends for 21st Century Christians like you and I to use in order to examine everything carefully”. Or what is the process to use to find the “church that is closest doctrinally to what the Lord intended”.

Interested to hear your thoughts.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Fascinating.

I once had as my signature here 1 Thess. 5:21 - But examine everything carefully hold fast to that which is good.

So that raises the question “What is the process that God intends for 21st Century Christians like you and I to use in order to examine everything carefully”. Or what is the process to use to find the “church that is closest doctrinally to what the Lord intended”.

Interested to hear your thoughts.

Well, the Apostles told us clearly:*

“Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”* (Jude 3)

That suggests to me that the Apostles gave all of the faith down to their followers. Therefore, the Church was already established, and a way to believe established. No more revelation, no more changes.

Therefore the early Church must have had the faith, already.
If we look in history, the Fathers of the Church are remarkably consistent. Even direct disciples of the Apostles and their immediate successors seem to hold the same beliefs. And they all claim to have been handed a tradition that comes from the Apostles.

This indicates to me that what they held is what the Church was supposed to be. I am not exceptionally intelligent, not enough to go toe-to-toe with these great men of God. Who am I to go to Irenaeus, or to Ignatius, or to Justin Martyr, and say ‘Sorry, I see this in the Bible, so you must be wrong’? Am I really more intelligent and more filled with the Holy Spirit than those who conversed directly with the Apostles or the disciples of the Apostles?

Additionally, historically, it takes centuries for corruption to enter into a story or belief system. If these guys were wrong, then it happened remarkably fast. It should have happened hundreds of years after the rise of the Christian faith, not so quickly. Plus I have a basic philosophy that what is older is better than what is newer. I’m skeptical of innovations in the faith.

If there is a good reason to reject that, please, please tell me. I’ll be more than happy to satisfy myself with Evangelicalism then. But I see no valid argument being proposed aside ‘Well this is how we interpret the Bible and Scripture interprets Scripture.’

God bless,

 

[AmateurPianist]

Well, the Apostles told us clearly:*

“Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”* (Jude 3)

That suggests to me that the Apostles gave all of the faith down to their followers. Therefore, the Church was already established, and a way to believe established. No more revelation, no more changes.

Therefore the early Church must have had the faith, already.
If we look in history, the Fathers of the Church are remarkably consistent. Even direct disciples of the Apostles and their immediate successors seem to hold the same beliefs. And they all claim to have been handed a tradition that comes from the Apostles.

This indicates to me that what they held is what the Church was supposed to be. I am not exceptionally intelligent, not enough to go toe-to-toe with these great men of God. Who am I to go to Irenaeus, or to Ignatius, or to Justin Martyr, and say ‘Sorry, I see this in the Bible, so you must be wrong’? Am I really more intelligent and more filled with the Holy Spirit than those who conversed directly with the Apostles or the disciples of the Apostles?

Additionally, historically, it takes centuries for corruption to enter into a story or belief system. If these guys were wrong, then it happened remarkably fast. It should have happened hundreds of years after the rise of the Christian faith, not so quickly. Plus I have a basic philosophy that what is older is better than what is newer. I’m skeptical of innovations in the faith.

If there is a good reason to reject that, please, please tell me. I’ll be more than happy to satisfy myself with Evangelicalism then. But I see no valid argument being proposed aside ‘Well this is how we interpret the Bible and Scripture interprets Scripture.’

God bless,

I too am skeptical of innovations in the faith. That is why I reject liberal Protestant moral theology.

And actually I agree with your basic assumptions (there is one I question…I will get to that) that probably the purest form of Christianity was the one practiced by the earliest church.

It does raise the question on how exactly might we know what the faith that the apostles taught their earliest followers was and what might be creative new ideas (but probably wrong) that were added on lately.

Would you agree with the statement “If it is recorded in the New Testament then I know it is a part of the faith that the Apostles gave their followers”?

So one question (assuming you agree with the above) would be whether there are any other sources that the Lord would/could have us use in determining just what -is- this faith that the Apostles gave their followers.

Another question (if multiple sources) would be what is the reliability level of the various sources one is using, and how would one resolve apparent conflict should it arise.

And one other question that really pertains to all sources would be how one would know that he/she is interpreting the source correctly and not unwittingly interpreting it through whatever spin an organization would.

You do make one assumption I find interesting

Additionally, historically, it takes centuries for corruption to enter into a story or belief system. If these guys were wrong, then it happened remarkably fast. It should have happened hundreds of years after the rise of the Christian faith, not so quickly.

Why do you assume this and how do you know this assumption is correct?

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Would you agree with the statement “If it is recorded in the New Testament then I know it is a part of the faith that the Apostles gave their followers”?

I most certainly would.

So one question (assuming you agree with the above) would be whether there are any other sources that the Lord would/could have us use in determining just what -is- this faith that the Apostles gave their followers.

Yes. A kind of oral tradition which explains what certain things mean, or a written tradition. We have the US Constitution, but if we want to know what the framers believed concerning it, we would consult their writings to get a better understanding. We Christians do this all the time. Although a systematic approach to reading the Bible would lead us to seeing the Trinity, in reality the Trinity is also a tradition. We believe it not necessarily because we find a clear phrase in scripture, but because it is a historic tradition of Christianity, confirmed by ecumenical councils and writings by the ECFs.

Another question (if multiple sources) would be what is the reliability level of the various sources one is using, and how would one resolve apparent conflict should it arise.

I agree.

And one other question that really pertains to all sources would be how one would know that he/she is interpreting the source correctly and not unwittingly interpreting it through whatever spin an organization would.

Because historians generally accept and believe that a source can remain reliable for hundreds of years on end before it becomes corrupted. That is how legends, for instance, begin. We do this for numerous documents - including the New Testament itself. Historians consider it authentic because most of the documents were written so early. Would you believe the Gospel of Matthew to be unreliable because it was written decades after the resurrection of Jesus? Indeed most classical documents we are were written hundreds of years later - including, for instance, the writings of Pliny.

But, assuming all of this isn’t true, why did the Early Christians believe such things so long ago? Why wasn’t the alternative discovered until an epiphany a thousand years later? And further, what caused the corruption? And why did it infect the Church?

 

[pneuma07]

I most certainly would.

Yes. A kind of oral tradition which explains what certain things mean, or a written tradition. We have the US Constitution, but if we want to know what the framers believed concerning it, we would consult their writings to get a better understanding. We Christians do this all the time. Although a systematic approach to reading the Bible would lead us to seeing the Trinity, in reality the Trinity is also a tradition. We believe it not necessarily because we find a clear phrase in scripture, but because it is a historic tradition of Christianity, confirmed by ecumenical councils and writings by the ECFs.

I agree.

Because historians generally accept and believe that a source can remain reliable for hundreds of years on end before it becomes corrupted. That is how legends, for instance, begin. We do this for numerous documents - including the New Testament itself. Historians consider it authentic because most of the documents were written so early. Would you believe the Gospel of Matthew to be unreliable because it was written decades after the resurrection of Jesus? Indeed most classical documents we are were written hundreds of years later - including, for instance, the writings of Pliny.

But, assuming all of this isn’t true, why did the Early Christians believe such things so long ago? Why wasn’t the alternative discovered until an epiphany a thousand years later? And further, what caused the corruption? And why did it infect the Church?

Ciao Fabius. Ottime domande, ottime davvero. ( meaning, for the other readers, “excellent questions, excellent indeed”. IMHO ) God bless you. P7. PS Greetings to AmateurPianist !

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Ciao Fabius. Ottime domande, ottime davvero. ( meaning, for the other readers, “excellent questions, excellent indeed”. IMHO ) God bless you. P7. PS Greetings to AmateurPianist !

Grazie pneuma. Che bello vedere un connazionale sul forum! Dio ti benedica!

(Thanks pneuma, it’s great to see a compatriot on the forum. God bless you!)