Simple Early Days

[XinMinny]

Radical and Pneuma7,

I want to check in once more with an apology. I regret the strength of my statement concerning the Magisterium. No excuses, I should have been a bit more respectful.

To clarify my feelings, my own experience with Catholic hierarchy has been disappointing. I don’t want to open a new line of discussion, but my feeling is that there can easily be an attitude of ‘demanding’ respect, rather than humble servitude (which wins respect). It was based on that experience that I made my statement, and I realize that is unfair to generalize in that way.

I do feel that authority has a way of spoiling people, and making them feel important, to the point that they lose the spirit of service. As Christians, if we lose that, we have lost something very important.

As for the rest. I respect the idea that the resurrection is in one sense of greater import than Jesus who went about doing good… It must be noted, however, that Peter mentioned his good deeds, and God wing with Him before he told Cornelius about the crucifixion and resurrection. I think that suggests that without his spirit of service, the miracle of the cross and the empty tomb would not have had such significance. So, they go together.

Again, however, the fact that he died, and was raised again falls in my mind into the category of simplicity. It is not complicated. The non-simple part comes in all the layers of application of that…

1 Peter 3:15 has been mentioned. I believe that the average person to whom Peter wrote that could have answered the demand for the reason of their hope simply, with the truth of the resurrection, and the change in their own life since believing the message.

It is true that Christianity had many interactions. Does that mean that the language of those with whom they were interacting had to govern the discussion? Maybe that is a question for another thread? How does one answer simply concerning what we believe when we are discussing the matter with someone with a different background than our own? Is it possible to have several short discussions over time, and that be more effective, because the individual with whom we would be conversing could perhaps see the answer in our life better than we could explain in words?

Cheers,
Minny

 

[Radical]

Or, for a better mutual understanding, here are some points we could explore:

• The expression “words of the apostles” is key here. It should be precised whether this is literal or to be understood as “reliable source on the words of the apostles”, in its turn.

We are told by a growing trend in XXI scholarship that outside the corpus paulinum ( and there are questions within it too) there can be little, or possibly even nothing, in the canonical NT we share, which was written by an Apostle. And the NT was likely not completed as we have it before the death of the last Apostle.

This is a good point. Jesus’s message is the thing that I am really trying to get back to…and we have few, if any of his actual words. What we have are transmissions of translations of recollections. What do we have that reliably reflects his teaching? I think the answer is the NT (and not tradition).

The first duty they did receive was to preserve the deposit…. Had he thought everything would eventually get lost of his decades of preaching, and life within disciples and congregations, but his written texts, why bothering doing anything else but writing, which took probably less than 1 per cent of his pastoral effort ? As for most other Apostles, if they would not write, they simply more or less would work in vain, in such a view.

The suggestion is not that the teaching has been lost, but that it has been clouded by additions. The apostles’ immediate audience was largely illiterate and so a focus on oral teaching makes sense.

Scriptures can speak to us, for sure. What we cannot do is…… speaking to Scriptures. “Tell me, please, Mike explains you say like this here, Kenneth on the contrary is confident you teach like that. What do you really mean ?” We could certainly amend my expression “living” just to reflect this situation. Something like “able to offer feedback, to tell you “OK” or “now you are wrong”, to dialogue”

“feedback” is a good distinction

• While a seeming right behavior makes a person charismatic in our eyes, and so other possible qualities, there is IMHO no immediate link between that and orthodoxy.

Perhaps that is b/c the test for “orthodoxy” has been constructed around the wrong criteria? Further, if someone cannot live the faith out in his actions, why should we trust him to spell the faith out in his words?

Personally, I confess I should be tempted any time to consider reliable just those who more or less fit with my own view.

that is most certainly a danger

And this Church which is invisible, more or less delivers the Scriptures, with something from my pj, if I get.( I met once here in CAF a protestant brother who plainly gave himself the authority to establish what books are canonical). I cannot understand at present how an invisible body canonizes and delivers Scriptures.

The production, preservation and recognition of scripture is ultimately credited to an “invisible” God utilizing visible people to achieve his ends….an invisible church could be credited with an achievement in the same way.
Since I do not believe in this thing called “apostolic succession”, I do not see how any particular group of believers can validly claim to be “the Church” and since I see a considerable difference between the deposit of faith in the very early church and the doctrine of subsequent churches I do not believe that it is valid for any group of believers to identify themselves as the same “church” that first received Christ’s message from Christ and the Apostles, then preserved it and then recognized it (as inspired) unless the said identification is by way of possessing the same Spirit.

In Christ

 

[pneuma07]

This is a good point. Jesus’s message is the thing that I am really trying to get back to…and we have few, if any of his actual words. What we have are transmissions of translations of recollections. What do we have that reliably reflects his teaching? I think the answer is the NT (and not tradition).

The suggestion is not that the teaching has been lost, but that it has been clouded by additions. The apostles’ immediate audience was largely illiterate and so a focus on oral teaching makes sense.

“feedback” is a good distinction

Perhaps that is b/c the test for “orthodoxy” has been constructed around the wrong criteria? Further, if someone cannot live the faith out in his actions, why should we trust him to spell the faith out in his words?

that is most certainly a danger

The production, preservation and recognition of scripture is ultimately credited to an “invisible” God utilizing visible people to achieve his ends….an invisible church could be credited with an achievement in the same way.
Since I do not believe in this thing called “apostolic succession”, I do not see how any particular group of believers can validly claim to be “the Church” and since I see a considerable difference between the deposit of faith in the very early church and the doctrine of subsequent churches I do not believe that it is valid for any group of believers to identify themselves as the same “church” that first received Christ’s message from Christ and the Apostles, then preserved it and then recognized it (as inspired) unless the said identification is by way of possessing the same Spirit.

In Christ

Thanks for the understandable elucidations.

 

[SteveVH]

As for the rest. I respect the idea that the resurrection is in one sense of greater import than Jesus who went about doing good… It must be noted, however, that Peter mentioned his good deeds, and God wing with Him before he told Cornelius about the crucifixion and resurrection. I think that suggests that without his spirit of service, the miracle of the cross and the empty tomb would not have had such significance. So, they go together.

The crucifiction and resurrection are ALL IMPORTANT, otherwise Jesus was just another good man. Without His resurrection, there is no resurrection. This is the single greatest event in human history and is incomparable to any other. It is of greater importance in every sense.

 

[rinnie]

I have been doing lots of thinking for a few years. There were a few comments a recent thread that sparked this one into existence. My wondering has gone something like this:
In the gospels, we read about people who followed Jesus. It seems that some of our 'issues’or ‘subjects of discussion’ here might not have been things they even thought of. For example, while it is true that the correlationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is vital to our life, those who followed Jesus would likely not have discussed it the same way we often do here on CAF. There are many other things that would also fall into that category.
It also seems that the teaching of Jesus himself was quite simple: Blessed are the poor in spirit, love your enemy, love the Lord with all your heart, let the seed be sown into your heart,etc.
So, a question? In all of our discussion about what I will call doctrine, are we neglecting to apply the simple teaching? And, further, would God be more pleased if we really focused on getting those into our lives, and didn’t spend so much time on ‘doctrinal issues?’
Discussion??

Thanks.
Full disclosure. Although my stated religion has been ‘unaffiliated’, I am part of a fellowship without a name trying to stick to the simple things. I am interested in your comments about this idea, and your reaction. I don’t intend to argue about it, I really am simply interested in your thoughts. Thanks again.

Persoanlly without Catholic doctrine how would we know what the truth was. And while Catholic doctrine is not always simple it is truth. And sometime truth is not always simple.

But while I agree one of the main teaching’s of Christ the greatest is Love. He did leave us commandments. So we can’t live without the Catholic doctrine, That is how we know how to achieve salvation. Jesus left it for a reason.

 

[peary]

I have been doing lots of thinking for a few years. There were a few comments a recent thread that sparked this one into existence. My wondering has gone something like this:
In the gospels, we read about people who followed Jesus. It seems that some of our 'issues’or ‘subjects of discussion’ here might not have been things they even thought of. For example, while it is true that the correlationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is vital to our life, those who followed Jesus would likely not have discussed it the same way we often do here on CAF. There are many other things that would also fall into that category.
It also seems that the teaching of Jesus himself was quite simple: Blessed are the poor in spirit, love your enemy, love the Lord with all your heart, let the seed be sown into your heart,etc.
So, a question? In all of our discussion about what I will call doctrine, are we neglecting to apply the simple teaching? And, further, would God be more pleased if we really focused on getting those into our lives, and didn’t spend so much time on ‘doctrinal issues?’
Discussion??

Thanks.
Full disclosure. Although my stated religion has been ‘unaffiliated’, I am part of a fellowship without a name trying to stick to the simple things. I am interested in your comments about this idea, and your reaction. I don’t intend to argue about it, I really am simply interested in your thoughts. Thanks again.

Well, Christianity cannot be all that ‘simple’. Thousands upon thousands of early Christians were brutally murdered because of the Faith, and, over the centuries, untold millions became martyrs. If it were really that simple, Christians would have received a slight pat on the head and the powers that be would have let them go on their merry way. Obviously, THAT doesn’t happen - even in today’s world.