Simple Early Days

[joe370]

continuing…

I am at ease with a bit of uncertainty. I am happy to say that I often don’t know how things should work. I am, however, very confident that all hinges on the two greatest commandments. IMHO it would have been better if the Trinitarians and the Arians didn’t get into their great debate, avoided trying to add precision to the revelation and said, “I don’t know how this works, but I will accept what was stated by the apostles (and recorded in their gospels and epistles) with thanksgiving…now where is an orphan or widow that needs my help?”

Btw…I find viewing a thread much more pleasant when large sized type isn’t utilized (at all)

Cheers

Perhaps it doesn’t really matter which church a Christian belongs to, just as long as they embrace those 2 greatest commandments? Perhaps we don’t even have to go to church, just as long as we are helping people such as orphans? Are these at all, possibilities?

 

[Radical]

Perhaps it doesn’t really matter which church a Christian belongs to, just as long as they embrace those 2 greatest commandments?

Not elevating secondary things into primary things doesn’t mean that one disregards the secondary things altogether.

Perhaps we don’t even have to go to church, just as long as we are helping people such as orphans?

Going to church for no other reason than to say you have gone to church isn’t going to do much (if any) good…but there are valid reasons to go to church. I suspect when we meet the Lord we will be admonished (if admonishment is part of the package we receive) more for our failure to help those in need than we will for our failure to attend church regularly.

Are these at all, possibilities?

probably not

 

[agent_grey]

The Holy Spirit is the one and only God pure and simple.

 

[pneuma07]

Unfortunately, I find myself arguing more and more in an attempt to convince people that there have been additions…or that they should at least consider the possibility…How do we get away from that?

Hi Radical !

Thanks for your contributions here which I enjoy as always. :tiphat:

I’d have two questions, if I may.

First. What is your home front like ?

Second. Considering also that I was not there in the First century, how can I get to know and list what is, and what isn’t, addition ?
( It would be profitable, in order to get correctly the convincement you want to share, to know both the definition of “addition” and to what exactly it is an addition).

In Christ
P7

 

[TedDC]

Perhaps it doesn’t really matter which church a Christian belongs to, just as long as they embrace those 2 greatest commandments? Perhaps we don’t even have to go to church, just as long as we are helping people such as orphans? Are these at all, possibilities?

Yes, I think those are very likely possibilities.

 

[SteveVH]

Yes, I think those are very likely possibilities.

I don’t believe these are likely possibilities. If God did not think it important that we go to Church then why did Jesus found a Church. Also, we have the commandment to “keep the Lord’s day holy”. I do see your point though. It doesn’t much matter if we go to church if we do not put flesh on the words of the gospel and take care of “the orphans and widows”. I think we need to do it all.

From the Catholic perspective, “Church” is where we are nourished by God’s word and the body and blood of Christ. Once nourished, we are to go out and do God’s will. One does not happen without the other.

 

[Radical]

Hi Radical

Hey Pneuma07, great to hear from you.

Thanks for your contributions here which I enjoy as always.

thank-you for your kind remarks (I am embarrassed to say that I have probably gotten a bit too assertive on a few threads lately and needed Chauncey’s example to remind me of the proper approach)

I’d have two questions, if I may.

First. What is your home front like ?

nothing new…still trying to find the least difficult treatment to endure…I trust your wife has bounced back?

Second. Considering also that I was not there in the First century, how can I get to know and list what is, and what isn’t, addition?

well you could trust me, but I suspect you are looking for an authority with better credentials

I think we see two distinct approaches w/i Christendom. You and other Catholics believe a certain authority was granted to the apostles who in turn passed that authority on to what has now become the Catholic Church. The CC then has the authority to definitively state what should and what shouldn’t be believed and to clarify what is and what isn’t an addition. The Orthodox and Anglicans would possess a very similar approach. I, on the other hand, do not trust that the CC or the Orthodox Church possess such an authority. As such, I believe that I am stuck with studying history to get a “list”. Incidentally, history, and in particular, the history of the CC together with (what I believe is a plain reading of scripture) is the reason that I could not bring myself to trust the CC. The process is not scientific and is based on likelihoods, but that doesn’t seem to be out of line God’s modus operandi.

( It would be profitable, in order to get correctly the convincement you want to share, to know both the definition of “addition” and to what exactly it is an addition).

Well let’s try to break down the original deposit as a Catholic might see it:

a) Christ’s teaching – definitely inspired and to be followed
b) The Apostle’s teaching (part A) – what remains as scripture is definitely inspired and to be followed
c) The Apostle’s teaching (part B) – here is where we part company as I doubt that there is much of anything that I would recognize as Apostolic teaching that is both preserved today and not also contained in scripture.
d) Expansions and clarifications of the CC on items a-c above.

How did I do? Now for the way I would see it. I would categorize most of what shows up at (c ) and (d) above as additions…additions meaning something that isn’t divinely inspired, but is a product of man’s piety or intellect. Some such additions could be developments from an inspired teaching, but b/c the “addition” isn’t inspired it is still better classified as an addition. W/o the support of an infallible clarification of a teaching found in (a) or (b), some such additions would be out and out novelties. Other such additions could be practical and reasonable solutions or interpretations which are beneficial, but it should be always remembered that such are not inspired and are subject to review.

Bless you P7

 

[chaunceygardner]

I think we see two distinct approaches w/i Christendom. You and other Catholics believe a certain authority was granted to the apostles who in turn passed that authority on to what has now become the Catholic Church. The CC then has the authority to definitively state what should and what shouldn’t be believed and to clarify what is and what isn’t an addition. The Orthodox and Anglicans would possess a very similar approach. I, on the other hand, do not trust that the CC or the Orthodox Church possess such an authority. As such, I believe that I am stuck with studying history to get a “list”. Incidentally, history, and in particular, the history of the CC together with (what I believe is a plain reading of scripture) is the reason that I could not bring myself to trust the CC. The process is not scientific and is based on likelihoods, but that doesn’t seem to be out of line God’s modus operandi.

Well let’s try to break down the original deposit as a Catholic might see it:

a) Christ’s teaching – definitely inspired and to be followed
b) The Apostle’s teaching (part A) – what remains as scripture is definitely inspired and to be followed
c) The Apostle’s teaching (part B) – here is where we part company as I doubt that there is much of anything that I would recognize as Apostolic teaching that is both preserved today and not also contained in scripture.
d) Expansions and clarifications of the CC on items a-c above.

How did I do? Now for the way I would see it. I would categorize most of what shows up at (c ) and (d) above as additions…additions meaning something that isn’t divinely inspired, but is a product of man’s piety or intellect. Some such additions could be developments from an inspired teaching, but b/c the “addition” isn’t inspired it is still better classified as an addition. W/o the support of an infallible clarification of a teaching found in (a) or (b), some such additions would be out and out novelties. Other such additions could be practical and reasonable solutions or interpretations which are beneficial, but it should be always remembered that such are not inspired and are subject to review.

Please excuse me for stepping in here. First, thanks, Radical, for considering me a good example!

Second, I like your analysis and explanation, and think that is a good start. But a couple of questions always seem to arise when we talk about the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. How do you handle teachings that appear contradictory? Teachings by Jesus that seem to oppose (or at least throw into confusion) something else He said? Or a teaching by an Apostle that seems to oppose what Jesus taught?

My solution has been to look for the essentials first, rather than to try to determine what are additions. Once it is determined what the core teachings of Jesus are, then everything that does not agree and complement that are (to me) additions. If it appears that Jesus said something contradictory, then either we (1) have a corrupted version or interpretation of what He said, or (2) we don’t really understand what He is saying.

Doing this is obviously a problem for anyone who thinks every word of scripture is the original teaching or wording and it is all divinely inspired. Some, like me, don’t have an issue with that, and instead try to weave our way through it all to get to the core teachings and meaning of Jesus.

The other big problem is that there is a ton, and I do mean a ton, of stuff that has been added (and changed) by people over the centuries (some by individuals, some by churches). This unfortunately seems to have to begun early in the history of Christianity with disagreements over several issues. But when we look at those in light of how they relate to the core teachings of Jesus, we find they are not important.

Of course, we also then have to rely on a church authority to explain and manage all this extraneous doctrine. But when we read the Gospels, we can see that Jesus is telling us directly what we must do, in plain and simple language. He expects us to understand it and act on it. No theologians, magisterium or volumes of canon law necessary. Just pure faith and a basic understanding and application of His words and example.

As heretical as this sounds to many, this includes doctrine like the Trinity; does it really matter what form or shape or number of persons make up God? Does it change the core truths of the Gospel message? If the Christian churches discovered tomorrow that they got the theology totally wrong, would the important stuff change? I say NO to all of it.

The Trinity is a BIG doctrinal item; but if one can accept that it is not crucial to our salvation, then all the other additional doctrines become trivial.

Simply, we have created churches based on beliefs and doctrines that have nothing to do with what is essential to salvation, and then have made those extra beliefs and doctrines essential. It is like saying that if we change a traffic law tomorrow, our entire society is ruined and the world will end. Sorry folks, it won’t.

I see posts from many people who do get this idea, and it is very heartening to hear that this is occurring in many places and amongst a wide range of people. It gives me hope that someday everyone will truly understand and live by the words and example of Jesus.

 

[pneuma07]

nothing new…still trying to find the least difficult treatment to endure…I trust your wife has bounced back?

well you could trust me, but I suspect you are looking for an authority with better credentials

I think we see two distinct approaches w/i Christendom. You and other Catholics believe a certain authority was granted to the apostles who in turn passed that authority on to what has now become the Catholic Church. The CC then has the authority to definitively state what should and what shouldn’t be believed and to clarify what is and what isn’t an addition. The Orthodox and Anglicans would possess a very similar approach. I, on the other hand, do not trust that the CC or the Orthodox Church possess such an authority. As such, I believe that I am stuck with studying history to get a “list”. Incidentally, history, and in particular, the history of the CC together with (what I believe is a plain reading of scripture) is the reason that I could not bring myself to trust the CC. The process is not scientific …

Well let’s try to break down the original deposit as a Catholic might see it:

a) Christ’s teaching – definitely inspired and to be followed
b) The Apostle’s teaching (part A) – what remains as scripture is definitely inspired and to be followed
c) The Apostle’s teaching (part B) – here is where we part company as I doubt that there is much of anything that I would recognize as Apostolic teaching that is both preserved today and not also contained in scripture.
d) Expansions and clarifications of the CC on items a-c above.

… I would categorize most of what shows up at (c ) and (d) above as additions…additions meaning something that isn’t divinely inspired, but is a product of man’s piety or intellect. …

Dear Radical,

do you mean she didn’t undergo any treatment yet ? What are her present conditions ?
My DW recovered long ago from her accident, though remaining with a very mild seemingly permanent disability.

I am perfectly OK with processes not being scientific. I could never say I used to trust my mother, when she was still with us, or I came to trust the Church, whom also we consider our mother, through scientific methods. And, going on unscientifically, I’ll try to express some of my difficulties with the proposed approach.

We could always hope to reach a unity, or sort of, on essentials through our own examination of Scripture AND history. Then we have a problem on what the essentials are. Chauncey for example seems to propose that Trinity after all is not, if I get. Do you agree that Trinitarian Christianity and Arianism are the same but for minor additions ? That would begin sounding puzzling enough to me.

But … we should focus on early days here, as per our title.
Speaking about the simple early days, those half-forgotten guys come to mind: Ebionites. They would tell me, for sure, they are the ones, the true faithful followers of Jesus, or better Rabbi Yoshua, or how you spell it.
And they’d teach me that His divinity is a blasphemous addition, that giving up the works of Torah like circumcision is … horrible “subtraction”.
“Wait a moment” any of us would probably reply “didn’t you read Paul’s epistles, I mean Galatians just for one”.
The fact is, that not only our ebionite interlocutors would reject Paul’s epistles from the inspired texts, but …they have him as their great villain.
They just accept the OT plus a version of Matthew without the first two chapters. And these, they maintain, are the Scriptures of the genuine believers.
Present Chrstianity, which is “Pauline Christianity” is then just dead wrong.

Well, they were maybe just a bizarre tiny branch. The Jerusalem Council of 50 AD or so was quite obviously right in condemning them. The question somehow does remain: why was the Council, that Council, right, and Ebionites, and their subsects and their likes, wrong ? Not because that Council is scriptural: that is your and my Scripture, NOT theirs.

Let us suppose anyway Ebionites are manifestly wrong. And so all those other, different, trouble makers, in Corinth and elsewhere.
Then, maybe, Marcionites are right. Since they openly reject the very essence of the ebionite narrative. Not only, in their view, true believers must give up the works of Torah. Thay have to jettison the OT altogether !
What are then the Scriptures of genuine believers ?
Precisely Paul’s epistles. Go figure. Minus Titus, 1Tim and 2 Tim. Plus Luke’s Gospel, or a version of it. And that’s all.
Not even one book, one single book, in common with Ebionites, you may note.
And true believers should have nothing to do with Judaism.

I may wonder whether, and why, Marcionism is as obviously wrong as Ebionism, being so essentially far from it. Is that so obvious that Marcionism is a blatant corruption of Pauline theology, rather than a legitimate, or even THE legitimate development of it ?

To be short, well relatively so , for reasons along these lines I come to doubt the fruitfulness of any “Back to simple early days” or “Back to basics” proposal within Christianity.

And I also come to be very skeptical on my ability to attain, by my individual research, Jesus’ message, even its essence. Let alone settle the paradigm of Christianity, by which measuring supposed additions, subtractions and corruptions of any believer and any faith community.

In Christ
P7

 

[Radical]

Chauncey, Pneuma…interesting stuff and good points, but I won’t be able to find the time to respond for another day or two. Please don’t go away.

Cheers.

 

[XinMinny]

Please excuse me for stepping in here. First, thanks, Radical, for considering me a good example!

Second, I like your analysis and explanation, and think that is a good start. But a couple of questions always seem to arise when we talk about the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. How do you handle teachings that appear contradictory? Teachings by Jesus that seem to oppose (or at least throw into confusion) something else He said? Or a teaching by an Apostle that seems to oppose what Jesus taught?

My solution has been to look for the essentials first, rather than to try to determine what are additions. Once it is determined what the core teachings of Jesus are, then everything that does not agree and complement that are (to me) additions. If it appears that Jesus said something contradictory, then either we (1) have a corrupted version or interpretation of what He said, or (2) we don’t really understand what He is saying.

Doing this is obviously a problem for anyone who thinks every word of scripture is the original teaching or wording and it is all divinely inspired. Some, like me, don’t have an issue with that, and instead try to weave our way through it all to get to the core teachings and meaning of Jesus.

The other big problem is that there is a ton, and I do mean a ton, of stuff that has been added (and changed) by people over the centuries (some by individuals, some by churches). This unfortunately seems to have to begun early in the history of Christianity with disagreements over several issues. But when we look at those in light of how they relate to the core teachings of Jesus, we find they are not important.

Of course, we also then have to rely on a church authority to explain and manage all this extraneous doctrine. But when we read the Gospels, we can see that Jesus is telling us directly what we must do, in plain and simple language. He expects us to understand it and act on it. No theologians, magisterium or volumes of canon law necessary. Just pure faith and a basic understanding and application of His words and example.

As heretical as this sounds to many, this includes doctrine like the Trinity; does it really matter what form or shape or number of persons make up God? Does it change the core truths of the Gospel message? If the Christian churches discovered tomorrow that they got the theology totally wrong, would the important stuff change? I say NO to all of it.

The Trinity is a BIG doctrinal item; but if one can accept that it is not crucial to our salvation, then all the other additional doctrines become trivial.

Simply, we have created churches based on beliefs and doctrines that have nothing to do with what is essential to salvation, and then have made those extra beliefs and doctrines essential. It is like saying that if we change a traffic law tomorrow, our entire society is ruined and the world will end. Sorry folks, it won’t.

I see posts from many people who do get this idea, and it is very heartening to hear that this is occurring in many places and amongst a wide range of people. It gives me hope that someday everyone will truly understand and live by the words and example of Jesus.

Hi again. I don’t really want to get too heavily involved in this. However, there are a few things about Chauncey’s post that i want to comment on.

1. What I have quoted in red seems very important to me. And, my personal thought is that if there are things that appear to be contradictions, it is our understanding that is not complete. There are many examples of that - a little more thought about the setting clears some things up well. So, I would say with respect to that, that the original text can still be thought of as having divine inspiration. We don’t have to let that go, in the way Chauncey is describing.
2. What is in blue - concerning the Trinity being a big doctrinal item. I think that is true. I have met some people who think that if you don’t use that word, you are not Christian. I don’t really think in terms of “Trinity.” I think in terms of Father (most frequently called ‘God’ in the NT), Son (in a few places referred to as ‘God’ but often called ‘Son of Man’), and Holy Spirit (more mysterious yet). I choose not to try to infer any more about their interrelationship than that from the text. It simply is what it is. No more thought necessary. The HS was promised to the church and to the believers. The HS seems to work outside of people to guide the Apostles, for example. And, inside of people, to bring about the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5) for example. But, I don’t think it is necessary to go further. Is that the kind of thought you are meaning, Chauncey?
3. Finally, in green - what is essential to our salvation? It seems to me there are 2 parts to that. One concerns our behavior and our attitude toward God and toward men. Is it with love? Is it with forgiveness? Absolutely necessary. The second part is in what the Son of God and Son of man did in His life and death. Without that, all we do would be without profit. It seems essential to me that we understand that - ‘without me ye can do nothing’. And, it is His sacrifice that makes the remission of sin possible. Understanding that is necessary, and profitable, because it helps us be thankful.

Just a few of my thoughts.

Minny

 

[chaunceygardner]

Hi again. I don’t really want to get too heavily involved in this. However, there are a few things about Chauncey’s post that i want to comment on.

You should get involved; it’s your thread and your comments and questions are important.

1. What I have quoted in red seems very important to me. And, my personal thought is that if there are things that appear to be contradictions, it is our understanding that is not complete. There are many examples of that - a little more thought about the setting clears some things up well. So, I would say with respect to that, that the original text can still be thought of as having divine inspiration. We don’t have to let that go, in the way Chauncey is describing.

Fair enough; I just also think that while a writing may be divinely inspired, it may have also been “corrupted” by human error, mis-understanding, or by a desire to promote a specific idea.

1. What is in blue - concerning the Trinity being a big doctrinal item. I think that is true. I have met some people who think that if you don’t use that word, you are not Christian. I don’t really think in terms of “Trinity.” I think in terms of Father (most frequently called ‘God’ in the NT), Son (in a few places referred to as ‘God’ but often called ‘Son of Man’), and Holy Spirit (more mysterious yet). I choose not to try to infer any more about their interrelationship than that from the text. It simply is what it is. No more thought necessary. The HS was promised to the church and to the believers. The HS seems to work outside of people to guide the Apostles, for example. And, inside of people, to bring about the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5) for example. But, I don’t think it is necessary to go further. Is that the kind of thought you are meaning, Chauncey?

That is the first half, yes. And I was using this doctrine as an example of what most people consider “essential” to being considered a Christian. One can also take it in the other direction, so that if we can agree that (1) we won’t agree on what is meant by the “Trinity”, and (2) that a shared understanding of that idea is not essential to our faith, THEN we can more easily see that many other lesser things (doctrines, rubrics, rituals) that we do not agree on are also not essential. I like how you say “it is what it is”. I view it one way, someone else views it another. Does it matter who is “right” or who is “wrong”. The joke may be that NO ONE has it “right”.

1. Finally, in green - what is essential to our salvation? It seems to me there are 2 parts to that. One concerns our behavior and our attitude toward God and toward men. Is it with love? Is it with forgiveness? Absolutely necessary. The second part is in what the Son of God and Son of man did in His life and death. Without that, all we do would be without profit. It seems essential to me that we understand that - ‘without me ye can do nothing’. And, it is His sacrifice that makes the remission of sin possible. Understanding that is necessary, and profitable, because it helps us be thankful.

Just a few of my thoughts.

The act of redemption would occur whether we know of it or not, unless one thinks it was meant for a select, knowledgable few, rather than being universal. The first part then becomes the key for us as individuals. It is our response to the acts and words of Jesus that lead us on the path to God. One can praise God and claim to believe with great energy, but the true test will be what we think, say and do with the faith that is within us.

 

[Radical]

Please excuse me for stepping in here.

I value your (name removed by moderator)ut

But a couple of questions always seem to arise when we talk about the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. How do you handle teachings that appear contradictory? Teachings by Jesus that seem to oppose (or at least throw into confusion) something else He said? Or a teaching by an Apostle that seems to oppose what Jesus taught?

My solution has been to look for the essentials first, rather than to try to determine what are additions. Once it is determined what the core teachings of Jesus are, then everything that does not agree and complement that are (to me) additions. If it appears that Jesus said something contradictory, then either we (1) have a corrupted version or interpretation of what He said, or (2) we don’t really understand what He is saying.

We are on the same page, but I wouldn’t necessarily classify them as “additions”…though some may be exactly that. I merely go with the (1) and (2) that you have listed and have faith that if God didn’t make it clear from the outset, then it can’t have been vital to the gospel message.

Of course, we also then have to rely on a church authority to explain and manage all this extraneous doctrine. But when we read the Gospels, we can see that Jesus is telling us directly what we must do, in plain and simple language. He expects us to understand it and act on it. No theologians, magisterium or volumes of canon law necessary. Just pure faith and a basic understanding and application of His words and example.

agreed

As heretical as this sounds to many, this includes doctrine like the Trinity; does it really matter what form or shape or number of persons make up God? Does it change the core truths of the Gospel message? If the Christian churches discovered tomorrow that they got the theology totally wrong, would the important stuff change? I say NO to all of it.

Agreed…for a long time God didn’t bother to reveal to his children the possible existence of three persons in the Godhead. Then God didn’t bother to explain how three could each be God and that God could still be one. The Trinitarian explanation appeals to me, but I don’t view it as an inspired doctrine.

I see posts from many people who do get this idea, and it is very heartening to hear that this is occurring in many places and amongst a wide range of people. It gives me hope that someday everyone will truly understand and live by the words and example of Jesus.

You are likely more optimistic than I. I am inclined to believe that the same human tendencies that got us off the path will always have an impact. People seem to really need lists (of dos and don’ts for example). They also seem to have a very hard time thinking that their understanding is not the best for everyone else too. (here I am thinking of my Charismatic friends who can not help but believe that their approach is best and all others should flock to it…otherwise one would miss the fullness of faith). Part of the phenomenon is that the Charismatic is driven to have assurance that his experience is legitimate (otherwise he merely fooling himself and acting in a rather foolish manner). Once he achieves that assurance, how can he help but think that all others should join in? Some get rather insistent. (please note I do not mean to pick on the Charismatic, but I thought they made a good example of how a well-intentioned fellow could be rather insistent that his view of Christianity must be followed….and it allowed me not to pick on Catholics yet again )

 

[Radical]

Dear Radical,

do you mean she didn’t undergo any treatment yet ? What are her present conditions ?

My wife had the surgeries some time back and the only proven treatment is hormone therapy. That therapy is only used with post-menopausal women and so they have induced menopause (That has been quite the treat for both of us …much worse for her of course.) There are options wrt the manner of inducement and then options wrt the hormones…each, it would seem, with their own complications and side effects. She has been sorting through those complications and effects for a year now trying to find the least difficult combination.

My DW recovered long ago from her accident, though remaining with a very mild seemingly permanent disability.

great to hear about the recovery…sorry to hear about the permanent disability.

Chauncey for example seems to propose that Trinity after all is not, if I get. Do you agree that Trinitarian Christianity and Arianism are the same but for minor additions ?

I haven’t looked at it in great detail, but I would assume that they essentially shared all doctrine except for the manner in which God manifested in three persons (for lack of a better term). I wouldn’t call the addition minor in either case b/c they made their respective views an absolute requirement. It seems to me that these well intended fathers first decided to clarify that which God had left ambiguous and then made their clarification an essential. I believe that the Trinitarian doctrine is as logically sound as one could get with respect to “how the Godhead works”, but I wouldn’t categorize it as inspired. Part of my reasoning flows from the “mark of an apostle” set out in scripture. It would seem that signs, wonders and miracles served to validate the apostles’ message, but I don’t see any such validation wrt the ECFs. In a lot of ways it would seem that the CC is moving in this direction. When the Catechism makes favorable remarks concerning Muslims at 841, I can’t help but note that the Arian view of Jesus would have been much, much higher than the Muslim view and the Arians would have been so much closer (if not identical) to orthodoxy in all other matters. If the plan of salvation includes Muslims, shouldn’t it include Arians even more so?

But … we should focus on early days here, as per our title.
Speaking about the simple early days, those half-forgotten guys come to mind: Ebionites. They would tell me, for sure, they are the ones, the true faithful followers of Jesus, or better Rabbi Yoshua, or how you spell it.
And they’d teach me that His divinity is a blasphemous addition, that giving up the works of Torah like circumcision is … horrible “subtraction”.
“Wait a moment” any of us would probably reply “didn’t you read Paul’s epistles, I mean Galatians just for one”.
The fact is, that not only our ebionite interlocutors would reject Paul’s epistles from the inspired texts, but …they have him as their great villain.
They just accept the OT plus a version of Matthew without the first two chapters. And these, they maintain, are the Scriptures of the genuine believers.
Present Chrstianity, which is “Pauline Christianity” is then just dead wrong.

agreed

Well, they were maybe just a bizarre tiny branch. The Jerusalem Council of 50 AD or so was quite obviously right in condemning them. The question somehow does remain: why was the Council, that Council, right, and Ebionites, and their subsects and their likes, wrong ? Not because that Council is scriptural: that is your and my Scripture, NOT theirs.

I would answer that it is b/c the council was overseen by apostles…who had validated authority.

I may wonder whether, and why, Marcionism is as obviously wrong as Ebionism, being so essentially far from it. Is that so obvious that Marcionism is a blatant corruption of Pauline theology, rather than a legitimate, or even THE legitimate development of it ?

But Paul wasn’t the only apostle with validated authority….and so I would ask, can Marcionism be reconciled with all apostolic teaching?

And I also come to be very skeptical on my ability to attain, by my individual research, Jesus’ message, even its essence. Let alone settle the paradigm of Christianity, by which measuring supposed additions, subtractions and corruptions of any believer and any faith community.

That’s fair. There is an interesting book that I picked up last month called The Historical Jesus: five views …for what it is worth, I thought it a good read….an Italian copy might be hard to find.

In Christ

 

[spockrates]

Radical:

I find your replies thought provoking.



If you don’t mind my asking, do you consider yourself Anglican, or are you tied to a different Protestant denomination, or are you attending a non-denominational church?

 

[Radical]

Radical:

I find your replies thought provoking.

Thanks…you are more than welcome to join in.

If you don’t mind my asking, do you consider yourself Anglican, or are you tied to a different Protestant denomination, or are you attending a non-denominational church?

I am from a Mennonite background and would classify myself as such if I had to grab a label…though the church I attend is not Mennonite…

 

[spockrates]

Thanks…you are more than welcome to join in.

I am from a Mennonite background and would classify myself as such if I had to grab a label…though the church I attend is not Mennonite…

Small world! I attended an Evangelical Mennonite church for several years.

 

[spockrates]

Though the church I attended made a change while I was there–from calling themselves Evangelical Mennonite to saying they had become non-denominational.



Are you currently attending a Mennonite, Amish, or other church?

 

[Radical]

Though the church I attended made a change while I was there–from calling themselves Evangelical Mennonite to saying they had become non-denominational.

Yah, that does seem to be the trend. I understand that the main reason is that the “Mennonite” stereotype is associated with collective barn-raising…so the feeling is that “Mennonite” should be removed from the title so that the “English” won’t feel that they must know how to build a barn before they can attend.

Are you currently attending a Mennonite, Amish, or other church?

No. The church of my youth was EMB. My brother is a pastor in the MB. The only difference between the EMB of my youth and the typical baptist church around here is the name…pacificism could become a difference if war broke out, but it is such a non-issue at the moment that I doubt many of the younger EMBers know of their pacifist tradition. The church I attend has a lot of cultural Mennonites in it (like myself), belongs to a denomination, but places so little emphasis on it, that it is akin to non-denom.

To relate this all back to the title of the thread, one of the main focuses of the radical reformation advocated by the anabaptists was to return to the simple early days and live out the principles found in the sermon on the mount each moment of our daily walk.

 

[spockrates]

Yah, that does seem to be the trend. I understand that the main reason is that the “Mennonite” stereotype is associated with collective barn-raising…so the feeling is that “Mennonite” should be removed from the title so that the “English” won’t feel that they must know how to build a barn before they can attend.

LOL! Yeah, and they probably wonder if you don’t have a TV and drive a horse and buggy to work, too!

No. The church of my youth was EMB. My brother is a pastor in the MB. The only difference between the EMB of my youth and the typical baptist church around here is the name…pacificism could become a difference if war broke out, but it is such a non-issue at the moment that I doubt many of the younger EMBers know of their pacifist tradition. The church I attend has a lot of cultural Mennonites in it (like myself), belongs to a denomination, but places so little emphasis on it, that it is akin to non-denom.

Smaller world, still! When I left the Catholic Church as a teenager, I hooked up with Fundamentalist Baptists for a few years. Nice people, but strongly anti-Catholic.



I did learn a great deal about the Bible from them, however.

To relate this all back to the title of the thread, one of the main focuses of the radical reformation advocated by the anabaptists was to return to the simple early days and live out the principles found in the sermon on the mount each moment of our daily walk.

Interesting. You were speaking of additions to the original beliefs of the Church. Would you say that there is a significant difference between such additions? I mean, consider the difference between Amish who are pacifists and believe it a sin to use violence, even in self-defense, and their Mennonite brothers who don’t hold to such a strict interpretation of Christ’s words to turn the other cheek. What such a Mennonite might consider an addition, an Amish might consider an original doctrine. To not be a pacifist, such an Amish person might say, is to make a subtraction!

However, this addition or subtraction (depending on one’s point of view) is not necessarily a significant one. A Mennonite and an Amish person might debate this difference in belief, but still not divide over it. Don’t you think?