Really, There Is A Lot To Learn About Your Faith

by AllTimeJeff 118 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • AllTimeJeff
    AllTimeJeff

    If anyone wants to keep this conversation going, I am game. But before you do, please read at least my first post on this.... I hardly think I came across as wanting to destroy faith. As PSacramento points out, its more about religion then personal faith. It has a lot to do with independently learning about the sources of our religion, from which our faith is often based.

    And as I made clear in the very first post on this thread, my intent is not to attack Christians or their faith. To discuss history and facts is not an attempt to do this. I think it hurts a persons faith more to put their head in the sand when it comes to factual history. Why turn away from it?

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    ATJeff,

    I agree that many time religion and faith get "muddled" up together, too bad really since one has very littel to do with the other.

    Religion is one of many ways a person can express their faith and people of the same faith can have very different religions, as we well know.

    I think that the canon issue brings that to the forefront, certainly all scriptures and letters and books were written by people of faith but they may not all be compatiable with a specific exppression of faith that some may have ( religion).

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips
    Variuous groups were rejected, notably the Gnostic Christians. People like Marcion, (decried by The Roman Church as a heretic) were excommunicated for his views that were not accepted by early church fathers.

    Gnostic groups were always rejected by the early church fathers. We have Paul's warning regading the false gnosis to Timothy: Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith.

    We have the Polycarp's (a disciple of the Apostle John) reaction to Marcion in Iraneaus' Against Heresies :

    "But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and acquainted with many that had seen Christ, but was also appointed by apostles in Asia bishop of the church of Smyrna. We too saw him in our early youth; for he lived a long time, and died, when a very old man, a glorious and most illustrious martyr's death, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, which the Church also hands down, and which alone are true.

    To provide you with some background, Against Heresies was written far before the Church became a political institution. Polycarp was second in line after John's death. Marcion was a founder of a gnostic sect.

    In addition, the works of the early church fathers demonstrate that they had definite viewpoints, and used the scrolls and citations that were available to them to prop up their beliefs.

    Well of course. What did you expect, that they have no viewpoints? They did. They taught what they had learned from their predecessors, which in turn learned it in a chain back to the Apostles.

    The bible canon was commisioned after the Church became the official state religion. The establishment of the Church was itself a political exercise.

    The Church was established in the 1st C. Not the 4th.

    I think the opposite of the question is: What is the basis for the claim that the bible is a product of holy spirit? Thousand of scrolls, with tons of variant readings, held among various groups and tribes is what one finds as to how the bible came around.

    The Church founded by Jesus Christ said that these Scriptures in the Christian Bible are divinely inspired. This is the same Church of which Christ said: on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

    I don't believe in the Christianity because of the Bible. I believe in the Bible because of the Christian Church. The Christian Church wrote the writings, preserved them, transmitted them, and taught which ones were inspired. When there were issues about which ones were authentic, a Council was made where all the Episkopoi rendered their decision as a body. This is no different than what we see in the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.

    ATJ, Have you studied any SOURCE documents? Have you read any of the Anti-Nicene Fathers? Have you read any of the ancient Church histories, such as for example Eusebius'? I doubt it.

    http://www.ccel.org/

    BTS

  • AllTimeJeff
    AllTimeJeff
    The Church was established in the 1st C. Not the 4th.

    BTS, I disagree with this. I know this might be an official church teaching, but we have no organized church until the 4th century, at which time, final efforts to make an officially accepted bible was established.

    Catholics and JW's are just two groups that claim their religion started in the first century. (actually, JW's claim Abel as the first JW) It is my opinion that this is done so that a claim to being the true church can be established. I don't believe history agrees with this, regardless of what is claimed.

    This isn't done out of disrespect to anyone, but for the record, I dispute all religions and churches who claim that their church got started in the 1st century.

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips
    but we have no organized church until the 4th century, at which time, final efforts to make an officially excepted canonized bible was established.

    Of course, this is absurd. We have letters, books, and artifacts that demonstrate a large cooperative body with a common teaching spread throughout the known world. The evidence lies in Scripture itself. All one has to do is read Acts.

    I don't believe history agrees with this, regardless of what is claimed.

    You can believe what you like, facts notwithstanding. You haven't demonstrated a basis for your belief to me or anyone else on this board.

    BTS

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    There is a pretty good conformity within the writing of the early christian writers, even those that were not part of the offical canon, at least in regards to what mattered: Jesus being the son of God, our saviour and his crucial importance in the New Convenant.

    Sure some of the ommissons are strange, like the Epistle of Barnabas that is part of the Codex Sinitcus (SP?) and not part of the Codex vaticanus.

    But I think that when you get a group of people together to make such a momumental decision, you are bond to get controversy.

  • Chalam
    Chalam

    Jeff, I think this, get the basics right, that is all that counts.

    The rest of theology and church history is of interest but as Paul says, "our knowledge now is partial" so I don't get too hung up on trying to work it all out.

    The dogmatism of "those who have all the answers" or have too much pride to admit when they are wrong is plain ridiculous.

    So the "destruction" thing, is the glass half empty or half full? I won't pretend Revelation 20 is literal but I would rather focus on 21 and 22.

    Jesus says He is the way, truth and life. If that is true there must be the wrong way, the lie and death.

    Focus on the former is my advice :)

    All the best,

    Stephen

  • AllTimeJeff
    AllTimeJeff

    Semantics aside, I believe that the Protestant reformation had in its crosshairs the claim that the Roman Catholic Church was the one true church, around since the 1st century?

    As to conformity and a basic idea of some beliefs, yes, I readily concede that concepts regarding the divinity of Jesus (which was disputed, be honest) and discussion of the New Covenant were around. But as PSacramento honestly admits, there were several ideas of what this meant, because you had several people with their own ideas. Men, I might add, all thinking their ideas were superior, backed by holy spirit.

    BTS, it seems we are getting hung up on the word "church". Can you help me out and define what you mean? For me, "church" in these latest posts have to do with several congregations of churches worshipping in agreement, something I don't think we find in history from the 1st - 3rd centuries in particular.

    And if I don't respond right away, its because work is calling me... :) But I would be interested if perhaps that is holding us up...

  • AllTimeJeff
    AllTimeJeff

    Stephen

    I have commented on other threads here on taking my (albeit very weird) Judeo Christian background and to use it as a guiding philosophy for my life. (The Christian deist thread by Lillith26 and AK Jeff's thread on Christian agnosticism)

    I personally find greater value in the words attributed to Jesus in that context right now. But having said that, there is a lot to learn about one's religion. :) It's all in books....

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips

    Going on your definition, this is even true today within many denominations, ATJ. To give one example, within the catholic church, there is a wide diversity regarding many things. Soteriology comes to my mind. The meaning of several prophecies is another. It is like this in other churches also. Throughout apostolic christian history, teachings don't get defined unless there is a major threat to unity. Then the episkopoi meet to define the teaching. This is the reason for pretty much all the ecumenical councils, such as the one at Nicaea, and to use the earliest known example, Jerusalem. It is also true of the council of Carthage, which made a ruling regarding the canon.

    BTS

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit