|
|
Post by clear observer on Jun 5, 2006 8:33:39 GMT -5
Right now I am just enjoying a role as observer. Ahem...AHEM! |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 5, 2006 8:38:54 GMT -5
? Franko, TH, I am interested to know if there is a "neutral" book/books on the evolution of religions. P.S: There is no such things as a neutral book. All you should seek is a reflection in word of what existed and exists in reality, the objective truth I mentionned earlier. Of course research will be clouded by preconceptions. And my reading in recently years has been more on discussions of Christianity itself. However (dusts of his bookshelf and coughs, digs though the library hidden and finds some embarrassingly outdated texts from old philosophy of religion classes): Critique of Religion and Philosophy, Kaufmann, Walter, Princeton University Press, 1958. Haven't looked at it in . . . well, many many years, but just did a quick "page-through" and looked at my highlights. Old, but current at the same time, perhaps. Especially liked the "dialogue between Satan and . . . " chapters. I think I may have to put it on the "books to read" pile. Exploring Religious Meaning, Monk, Robert C., Hofheinz, Walter C., et al, Prentice-Hall Inc, 1973 is the text that first came to mind -- a book I thoroughly enjoyed. Neither book is a "history of the evolution of religions". I am sure that there are many, and my memory is hazy of classes taken and words taken down on paper and quickly forgotten after final exams. Was Judaism the first monotheistic religion? Did Christianity and Islam grow out of Judaism? Christianity most assuredly; Islam . . . well, maybe a side-by-side late evolution (the histories of the three religions are at least parallel up to Abraham). Also on my shelf: Does God Exist?, Küng, Hans, Doubleday and Company, 1980, though I confess that I did onlcursoryry reading. Again, not a history, but thoughts on "thoughts on God". Probably doesn't help, now I must delve back into that which I am paid to dratherer than what I most heartily enjoy. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 5, 2006 8:41:48 GMT -5
Right now I am just enjoying a role as observer. Ahem...AHEM! Pardon me: spectator, witness, non-participant, onlooker, bystander, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jun 5, 2006 11:40:33 GMT -5
Hey Cranky the following is an audio tape Professor Peter Kreeft professor of philosophy at Boston college on the question of whether one you can proove the existence of God. I think his proofs are sound and valid. In other words, I think that the existence of God can be demonstrated. Turn on your sound www.peterkreeft.com/audio/18_god-existence/peter-kreeft_god-existence.mp3Enjoy. He's a very clear thinker. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 5, 2006 17:59:16 GMT -5
Hey Cranky the following is an audio tape Professor Peter Kreeft professor of philosophy at Boston college on the question of whether one you can proove the existence of God. I think his proofs are sound and valid. In other words, I think that the existence of God can be demonstrated. Turn on your sound www.peterkreeft.com/audio/18_god-existence/peter-kreeft_god-existence.mp3Enjoy. He's a very clear thinker. I will listen to it tomorrow, on 06-06-06......and if I spontaneously combust......iit's YOUR fault! |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jun 5, 2006 20:19:41 GMT -5
Hey Cranky the following is an audio tape Professor Peter Kreeft professor of philosophy at Boston college on the question of whether one you can proove the existence of God. I think his proofs are sound and valid. In other words, I think that the existence of God can be demonstrated. Turn on your sound www.peterkreeft.com/audio/18_god-existence/peter-kreeft_god-existence.mp3Enjoy. He's a very clear thinker. I will listen to it tomorrow, on 06-06-06......and if I spontaneously combust......iit's YOUR fault! The nice thing about philosophy, properly done, is that it is supposed to work by the power of reason and evidence alone. Kreeft does a very nice job of addressing economically the issue and methods of approach. Some of his other stuff is specifically a defence (and pretty good one) of Catholic beliefs or "apologetics" or explanations. I studied the same philosophical heritage, and am forever grateful that I was so fortunate as to be able to learn some of it. I doubt that he'll say much that you'll find contovertial, and I think the lecture was directed at first year University students, but I'm not certain about that. I hope you enjoy its intellectual rigor as much as I do. If you spontaneously combust, make sure you film it, because most are convinced that human spontaneous combustion is an urban myth.  |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 6, 2006 21:01:22 GMT -5
Breaking The Da Vinci Codeexcerpts of a fairly long article Brown claims "almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false." Why? Because of a single meeting of bishops in 325, at the city of Nicea in modern-day Turkey. There, Brown argues, church leaders who wanted to consolidate their power base (he calls this, anachronistically, "the Vatican," or "the Roman Catholic church") created a divine Christ and an infallible Scripture—both novelties that had never before existed among Christians.
Brown is right about one thing (and not much more). In the course of Christian history, few events loom larger than the Council of Nicea in 325. When the newly converted Roman Emperor Constantine called bishops from around the world to present-day Turkey, the church had reached a theological crossroads.
Led by an Alexandrian theologian named Arius, one school of thought argued that Jesus had undoubtedly been a remarkable leader, but he was not God in flesh. Arius proved an expert logician and master of extracting biblical proof texts that seemingly illustrated differences between Jesus and God, such as John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I." In essence, Arius argued that Jesus of Nazareth could not possibly share God the Father's unique divinity.
In The Da Vinci Code, Brown apparently adopts Arius as his representative for all pre-Nicene Christianity. Referring to the Council of Nicea, Brown claims that "until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet … a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless."
. . .
The Council of Nicea did not entirely end the controversy over Arius's teachings, nor did the gathering impose a foreign doctrine of Christ's divinity on the church. The participating bishops merely affirmed the historic and standard Christian beliefs, erecting a united front against future efforts to dilute Christ's gift of salvation.
. . .
With the Bible playing a central role in Christianity, the question of Scripture's historic validity bears tremendous implications. Brown claims that Constantine commissioned and bankrolled a staff to manipulate existing texts and thereby divinize the human Christ.
Yet for a number of reasons, Brown's speculations fall flat.
Ironically, the process of collecting and consolidating Scripture was launched when a rival sect produced its own quasi-biblical canon. Around 140 a Gnostic leader named Marcion began spreading a theory that the New and Old Testaments didn't share the same God. . . .
Another rival theology nudged the church toward consolidating the New Testament. During the mid- to late-second century, a man from Asia Minor named Montanus boasted of receiving a revelation from God about an impending apocalypse. . . .
By the time of Nicea, church leaders debated the legitimacy of only a few books that we accept today, chief among them Hebrews and Revelation, because their authorship remained in doubt. In fact, authorship was the most important consideration for those who worked to solidify the canon. Early church leaders considered letters and eyewitness accounts authoritative and binding only if they were written by an apostle or close disciple of an apostle. This way they could be assured of the documents' reliability.
Though unoriginal in its allegations, The Da Vinci Code proves that some misguided theories never entirely fade away. They just reappear periodically in a different disguise. Brown's claims resemble those of Arius and his numerous heirs throughout history, who have contradicted the united testimony of the apostles and the early church they built. Those witnesses have always attested that Jesus Christ was and remains God himself. It didn't take an ancient council to make this true. And the pseudohistorical claims of a modern novel can't make it false.the whole thing, from Christianity Today
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 6, 2006 21:44:44 GMT -5
Forget about the Truth of this and the Truth of that, it's just silly Theologian Donald A. Carson: Of course, truth is relational . . . But before it can be relational, it has to be understood as objective. Truth is truth. It is, in short, ultimate reality.Not sure where we go from there. He doesn't talk about my truth or your truth, about my understanding of truth or your understanding of truth . . . he suggests there is an ultimate truth, and that we'd better keep looking because we certainly have't found it! |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 6, 2006 22:54:04 GMT -5
Forget about the Truth of this and the Truth of that, it's just silly Theologian Donald A. Carson: Of course, truth is relational . . . But before it can be relational, it has to be understood as objective. Truth is truth. It is, in short, ultimate reality.Not sure where we go from there. He doesn't talk about my truth or your truth, about my understanding of truth or your understanding of truth . . . he suggests there is an ultimate truth, and that we'd better keep looking because we certainly have't found it! Boy, ain't that the truth....... |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jun 6, 2006 23:11:35 GMT -5
I think I read somewhere that the Arain heresy was defeated by a vote of some 300 to 2 by the church of the day. Most doctrinal positions have always been held by the church , and get formally defined often in response to a challenge or need for fuller clarity.
As to the Roman Catholic church being an anachronistic term in 325, I beg to differ. The reference became popular very early to identify it as the church where Peter was as is indicated in the folowing early witness of the church
The Authority of the Pope: Part I
In other Catholic Answers tracts, we have shown that the Church Fathers recognized that Jesus made Peter the rock on which he would build his Church, that this gave Peter a special primacy, that Peter went to Rome, and that he left successors there. In this tract we will show that they also understood that Peter’s successors shared in his special authority or primacy.
In a wide variety of ways, the Fathers attest to the fact that the church of Rome was the central and most authoritative church. They attest to the Church’s reliance on Rome for advice, for mediation of disputes, and for guidance on doctrinal issues. They note, as Ignatius of Antioch does, that Rome "holds the presidency" among the other churches, and that, as Irenaeus explains, "because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree" with Rome. They are also clear on the fact that it is communion with Rome and the bishop of Rome that causes one to be in communion with the Catholic Church. This displays a recognition that, as Cyprian of Carthage puts it, Rome is "the principal church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source."
Most significant are the passages below in which the popes, by their statements or their actions, reveal their understanding of their own authority in the Church, such as when Pope Clement I commanded the church of Corinth to reinstate its leadership, or when Pope Victor excommunicated the churches of Asia Minor as a group, after which the other bishops sought to change Victor’s mind but did not challenge his authority to have made the excommunication.
In this tract we will cover the views of the popes and other Church Fathers up to the year A.D. 341. The views of the Fathers after this period will be covered in the tract, The Authority of the Pope: Part II.
Pope Clement I
"Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).
Hermas
"Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty" (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).
Ignatius of Antioch
"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).
"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1).
Dionysius of Corinth
"For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying" (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]).
"Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement" (ibid., 4:23:11).
The Martyrs of Lyons
"And when a dissension arose about these said people [the Montanists], the brethren in Gaul once more . . . [sent letters] to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia and, moreover to Eleutherius, who was then [A.D. 175] bishop of the Romans, negotiating for the peace of the churches" (Eusebius, Church History 5:3:4 [A.D. 312])
"And the same martyrs too commended Irenaeus, already at that time [A.D. 175] a presbyter of the community of Lyons, to the said bishop of Rome, rendering abundant testimony to the man, as the following expressions show: ‘Once more and always we pray that you may rejoice in God, Pope Eleutherius. This letter we have charged our brother and companion Irenaeus to convey to you, and we beg you to receive him as zealous for the covenant of Christ’" (ibid., 5:4:1–2).
Irenaeus
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
Eusebius of Caesarea
"A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190]. For the parishes of all Asia [Minor], as from an older tradition held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Savior’s Passover. . . . But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world . . . as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast [of Lent] on no other day than on that of the resurrection of the Savior [Sunday]. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. . . . Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love. . . . [Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom" (Church History 5:23:1–24:11).
"Thus then did Irenaeus entreat and negotiate [with Pope Victor] on behalf of the peace of the churches—[Irenaeus being] a man well-named, for he was a peacemaker both in name and character. And he corresponded by letter not only with Victor, but also with very many and various rulers of churches" (ibid., 24:18).
Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). ... On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
"Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church" (Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]).
"Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting ... You wrote ... that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church" (ibid., 55[52]:1).
"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men ... when the place of Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside [the Church]. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (ibid., 55[52]:8).
"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).
Firmilian
"[Pope] Stephen ... boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. ... Stephen ... announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter" (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:17 [A.D. 253]).
Pope Julius I
"[The] judgment [concerning Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. It behooved all of you to write us so that the justice of it might be seen as emanating from all. ... Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. ... What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you" (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20–35).
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 9, 2006 7:12:32 GMT -5
I really would not expect "Christianity Today" to come out and say "Good job Mr. Brown, you caught the church making Jesus more than he was". Christian literature will be slanted for a Christian agenda , and non-Christian literature will be slanted with a non-Christian agenda. That's why this is a hard topic to debate because it is hard to find an impartial source. The Bible is written by Christians (presumably, Guttenberg) for Christians from accounts/tales/exagerrations/stories that were passed down through the ages. And seeing that history was not entirely documented way back then .... it is hard to determine what is what. For instance .... what did Jesus do on June 9th, 26AD? Can anyone truly tell me what he specifically did that day? No? Well then how do we know he was not with Mary Magdelen that day alone in some hut? Just saying .... that is all .... there is no accurate account of EVERY day of the man's life. And is it beyond the realm of possibility that he a man and a woman could be together? Now let's go forward 2000 years. It is June 9, 2006. If a man, carrying his infant in his arms, walks up to you on the street in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver (whereever anyone on here lives) and says to you ... "My child, don't despair, (and then proceeds to tell you about an event that happened to you recently that has you down in the dumps), God loves you and believe in me, His living blood, and you will find salvation, (then asks you to do something that you think is crazy)" and walks away. Do you think you just met an escaped mental patient, or have you just met the Son of God (or descendant)? And worse, what if you think one way and are wrong?  I wanted in this thread to explore an intellectual (not necessarily something we believe) discussion about "what if it were true, how would we know if we they walked up to us" type of avenue. Something like "is there alien life out there"? Some believe there is, some don't ... but how would would we know if it was true? But alas .... |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jun 9, 2006 8:13:20 GMT -5
Re Skilly's :For instance .... what did Jesus do on June 9th, 26AD? Can anyone truly tell me what he specifically did that day?
This just in; dateline Middle East. Recently found gmostic gospels have included data downloaded from Jesus' organizer.
6:45 Rise and Shine
7:30 - Heal leper
8:15 - Speak to Peter about impetuosity
9:30 - Note to Mary M. that it was mot me who sent the red roses.
11:30 - Scripture study with the pharisees
12:00 - Lunch with God's mom.
2:00 - Meeting with Joe's lawyers explaining why not to sue.
2:30 - Remind the crowd to be perfect as their father in heaven is perfect.
3:00 - siesta, people are not oxen
Good post Silly. Critical questions worthy of good critical thinking.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 9, 2006 10:38:32 GMT -5
I really would not expect "Christianity Today" to come out and say "Good job Mr. Brown, you caught the church making Jesus more than he was". Nor would I . . . further, I would not expect it to make Jesus less than He was. Christianity Today seems a magazine that is open to different viewpoints and discussion/debate, though it is of a more conservative/orthodox/traditional nature. Yes, belief can indeed get in the way, which is why I see the Bible one way, Thab sees it another, and HA uses the book (if he has one) as a prop to replace the broken leg of his couch. My perspective: as the first generation of people who eventually became known as Christians died off, some believed a record of their leader was necessary . . . so that which had been passed down orally was written. In the process of transmission, and as discussions (much like this one) took place trying to discern who this Jesus character really was, some beliefs were solidified and codified while others were (in the main) discarded. This did not mean that debate ended – just that orthodoxy was established – at the Council of Nicea. Here is Christianity Today’s Church Historypage. Almost seriously yet tongue in check, I ask “who cares?”. The Gospels are not a diary but a general history Beyond the realm of possibility? No. Beyond the realm of probability? Yes. It goes to the credibility of the man Jesus, and beyond. First, if Jesus were indeed “merely” (and I use the term advisedly) a Rabbi, then there would not be a hint of impropriety in His life, and He would never be alone with a woman. Second, if Jesus had been found alone with a woman He could have been accused of adultery. Found guilty, the punishment was stoning (and not the “good” kind). Third, if Jesus is indeed the Christian Messiah and the Biblical claims/traditions are right, He was sinless. Adultery is a sin; therefore . . . I think your example goes too far, in the “asks you to do something you think is crazy”. It seems that Jesus was accepted even by the Jewish leaders as a Rabbi and Prophet [most Old Testament prophets were considered crazy. Even I am at times for my stand/beliefs!]. There was/is disagreement as to whether He was the Jewish Messiah, and what that meant/means. Moi aussi. I did not want this to degenerate into a discussion of “which brand of Christianity is true or right”, but rather a discourse of the Gnostic claims of Brown et. al. and traditional Christianity. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jun 9, 2006 11:58:49 GMT -5
Wasn't this thread about the claims of the DaVinci code, the truth about Christ and the truth about the church? How could it not be abolut the church? If for instance, we speak abnout the apostles dying off, they had already annointed their ecclesiastical successors, including of course the bishop of Rome. History is history.
Asking what really happened is of course and necessarily going to have a bearing on which religion and to what extent, actually represents Christ. The earliest church reveals itself to be ordered upon the same doctrinal, moral and ecclesiatucal premises as it still is today. If Christ was truly divine of course, how could it possibly be otherwise? The idiotic assertion that some badass group of nasty orthodoxers just took over a previously freewheeling, magical mystery tour feelgood show is an idea that can only appease the easily appeased.t
As to the point of "impartial" history, it is again obviously the people who were personally selected by him, walked with him started a church on his command and saw him rise from the dead who are the actual witnesses to Christ, just as you are a better witness of the childhood of your kids or life with your parents.
The 4 Gospels are better documented by standard historical criteria than are virtually any event in all of antiquity. Some historians apply non-historical criteria because the idea of miracles offends their sense of materialism, but that is in the service of preconceived dogma, not history. The gospels give reliable witness and are in fact eyewitness accounts to the experiencing of the actual person, Jesus.
The gnostic poop and nonsense is known to be far removed from the actual time of Christ and with trhe usual dumbass stuff pinned to the originals. All this "new" stuff, is really very old and not the least bit interesting to actual scholars. It is good for keeping A&E's advertisers profitable, along with Dawg's ratings.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jun 9, 2006 12:26:47 GMT -5
Here are some actual quotes of the people who were there. Apostolic Tradition Is Scripture the sole rule of faith for Christians? Not according to the Bible. While we must guard against merely human tradition, the Bible contains numerous references to the necessity of clinging to apostolic tradition. Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6). To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach. The early Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, recognized the necessity of the traditions that had been handed down from the apostles and guarded them scrupulously, as the following quotations show. Papias "Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition" (fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39 [A.D. 312]). Eusebius of Caesarea "At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition" (Church History 4:21). Irenaeus "As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same" (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]). "That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (ibid., 3:4:1). www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about. "But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. "With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:1–2). Clement of Alexandria "Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition" (Miscellanies 1:1 [A.D. 208]). Origen "Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2 [A.D. 225]). Cyprian of Carthage "[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop Fabian by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way" (Letters 75:3 [A.D. 253]). Athanasius "Again we write, again keeping to the apostolic traditions, we remind each other when we come together for prayer; and keeping the feast in common, with one mouth we truly give thanks to the Lord. Thus giving thanks unto him, and being followers of the saints, ‘we shall make our praise in the Lord all the day,’ as the psalmist says. So, when we rightly keep the feast, we shall be counted worthy of that joy which is in heaven" (Festal Letters 2:7 [A.D. 330]). "But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 10, 2006 7:19:51 GMT -5
Almost seriously yet tongue in check, I ask “who cares?”. The Gospels are not a diary but a general history Well, I admit I am trying to play devil advocate here. But it is a valid point that we do not know Jesus' every movement. Beyond the realm of possibility? No. Beyond the realm of probability? Yes. It goes to the credibility of the man Jesus, and beyond. First, if Jesus were indeed “merely” (and I use the term advisedly) a Rabbi, then there would not be a hint of impropriety in His life, and He would never be alone with a woman. Second, if Jesus had been found alone with a woman He could have been accused of adultery. Found guilty, the punishment was stoning (and not the “good” kind). Third, if Jesus is indeed the Christian Messiah and the Biblical claims/traditions are right, He was sinless. Adultery is a sin; therefore . . . I don't want to speak for Christians, or the church for that matter, but I get a general impression that the most blasphemous claim in the Da Vinci Code was that Christ has descendants. I think most would see his general accounts of the organizations (church, Opus dei, etc) as possible and maybe OK if the claim of Jesus' bloodline was not so vile to them. I haven't re-read the book, not sure if I will either, but does the book actually say that Jesus had sex with Mary Magdelen? Does it say they were intimate? I believe it says that they were spouses. Jesus was born through an immaculate conception, so it is beyond the realm of possibility that his son was also? Thereby, maintaining Jesus' celibacy. In the book, the claim is that Rabbi's had wives back in the time of Jesus and it is not a stretch that Jesus may have had a wife. This would not be adultery. I think your example goes too far, in the “asks you to do something you think is crazy”. It seems that Jesus was accepted even by the Jewish leaders as a Rabbi and Prophet [most Old Testament prophets were considered crazy. Even I am at times for my stand/beliefs!]. There was/is disagreement as to whether He was the Jewish Messiah, and what that meant/means. I am not sure I agree. I am not questioning Jesus' character or his stance as a Prophet. What I am suggesting that his Father has tested mens "faith" on numerous accounts. Some of the "tests" were borderline on asinine, but God felt that the individual's faith needed to be tested. (My Bible is weak so correct me if I get the names wrong). Didn't he ask Abraham to kill his only son? If "God" appeared to you today and asked you to kill your child, would you? Didn't God ask Noah to build an ark and people thought he was nuts? If "God" asked you today to build an underground shelter big enough to fit 2 of every animal on earth , would you? There are other example I am sure ...Moses I guess ... but my point is that God has asked men to do unspeakable things. And if someone today claimed to be God, or the Son of God sent back by God, and asked you to sacrifice something (your child?) ..... would you? ... and would you be willing to risk being wrong? To me you either believe or you don't , there is no hedging your bets (ala Pascal's Wager) |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 10, 2006 8:59:54 GMT -5
Ah, discussion to distract from an ever-growing list of chores on a cold day . . . Well, I admit I am trying to play devil advocate here. But it is a valid point that we do not know Jesus' every movement. You are right. Nor do we know all of Julius Caesar's movements, yet we are content with the histories we have of him. I think the Catholic Church has move issues with the "identified" conspiracy (Paul?). The (evangelical) Protestant Church thinks this is pure bad theology but by and large is using the book to once again say that North America is a culture of biblical illiterates and is using this as a springboard for discussion, teaching, and (yes, in some ways) proselytizing. As I've said previously (mystery cults notwithstanding) the "blasphemy" is in denying the resurrection. I think that's a stretch that even Brown wouldn't make. If you are going to be married you are going to have sex. This is another disagreement between Protestants and Catholics: Catholics refer to an "ever-virgin Mary" and say that Jesus' brothers and sisters were from Joseph's previous marriage; Protestants say that they were blood relatives -- that Joseph had normal desires and acted on them with Mary. I guess it goes to theology: nowhere in the Bible does it say that Joseph and Mary had sexual relations, but nowhere does it not. This is where THab would point to tradition as key and where I would disagree. Right. If (a) Jesus were a Rabbi, (b) didn't die, and (c) moved to France and married Mary. This points us back to the heart of the matter: how much of the Gospel record is reliable? The Bible (as canonized) says (a) Jesus was more than a Rabbi -- He was the Messiah, (b) He died, then rose again, and (c) ascended into heaven (not France). Hmmm . . . in answer, the tests/calls from God came from God, not from one of His prophets/spiritual leaders (and you got the names right). And you left out one of the biggest tests of all: circumcision (not a big deal for an eight-day-old boy, perhaps, though there is some debate on that, but when adults we called to the "task" to fit under the covenant . . . ). If God called me to build an underground shelter, my reaction would be like Moses at the burning bush: are you sure you have the right person for the job? would be my second question, after are you nuts?. I would then put into practice Wesley's Quadrilateral: scripture, tradition, reason and experience, all working together. And in all likelihood delay as long as possible until I know for absolute positive sure (hearkening back to Bill Cosby's classic spiel on Noah). And if someone today claimed to be God, or the Son of God sent back by God, and asked you to sacrifice something I would not do so, as it is opposed to my understanding of the Christian God. I would not join the Branch Davidians or go to Jonestown. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jun 10, 2006 10:03:34 GMT -5
As I've said previously (mystery cults notwithstanding) the "blasphemy" is in denying the resurrection.
You're right Franko. Most Americans can't name the president who dropped the atomic bombs. The legs of Brown is total ignorance. No serious and even moderately informed person gives this goofball stuff the time of day. It's a beautiful example of media controlling the thinking of the masses.
I
it's not a simple objection. The thing we call "tradtion" is the continuing authority of the church to teach inalllibly on matters of faith and morals, or what God has revealed and what our response is to be. We' re not talking about some third party thing called "tradition", but the actual living out of the church.
These people were there. They knew Mary personally. They SAW Christ and HE told THEM what was what. The church is not some intellectually abstracted "body of Christ" in a theological "truth" statement. The church was and IS the actual body of CHrist. Christ IS the ACTUAL head of the ACTUAL church then and now. (THAT is why the church is infallible by the way).
For Mary to have a second job following the incarnation (The Immaculate Conception does not refer to the birth of Christ...I used to make that mistake too). Christ, the son of Mary goes on honouring his Father and mother, as per the commandments, and so of course must His body, i.e. the church as His body.
It is more than passing strange that the mother of Jesus and who is exalted as the mother of the church and "queen of the apostles", who conceives Jesus, the world's most famous celibate who called upon those who would follow him more closely to give up marriage, property etc, it is more than passing strange, or totally incongruous and baffling to believe that she would then go to have a brood. Totally goofy and flying in the face of all that we know.
The church does not invent doctrine, but rather affirms what is true and never introduces anything new. She affirm this most predictable of doctrines too, of course.
The apostles and their successors were actually there, in the flesh, walking about and tallking WITH Jesus, WITH Mary.
I believe that the use of the term brothers is actually the same as is used for "cousin" and needn't refer to immediate family. I'll look it up again.
It's funny that we try to secondguess clear historical records concerning events that were the common experience of scads of people, preferring our own 2000 year later uninformed biases. I'll print some of the historical documents.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jun 10, 2006 10:34:14 GMT -5
I didn't imagine I'd be presenting stuff on the perpetual virginity of Mary on a Habs board one day. Mysterious ways indeed..... Here are some of the relevant writings from the church. Mary: Ever Virgin Most Protestants claim that Mary bore children other than Jesus. To support their claim, these Protestants refer to the biblical passages which mention the "brethren of the Lord." As explained in the Catholic Answers tract Brethren of the Lord, neither the Gospel accounts nor the early Christians attest to the notion that Mary bore other children besides Jesus. The faithful knew, through the witness of Scripture and Tradition, that Jesus was Mary’s only child and that she remained a lifelong virgin. An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many. According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: "The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ" (Patrology, 1:120–1). To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity. However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated "virgin of the Lord," to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion). According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit. The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been reconciled with the biblical references to Christ’s brethren through a proper understanding of the meaning of the term "brethren." The understanding that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus’ stepbrothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome (fourth century). It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ’s brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as "brethren." The Catholic Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Today most Protestants are unaware of these early beliefs regarding Mary’s virginity and the proper interpretation of "the brethren of the Lord." And yet, the Protestant Reformers themselves—Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli—honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible, as have other, more modern Protestants. The Protoevangelium of James "And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there" (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]). "And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’" (ibid., 8–9).
"And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’" (ibid., 15).
"And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’" (ibid.).
Origen
"The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).
Hilary of Poitiers
"If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate" (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).
Athanasius
"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).
www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp Epiphanius of Salamis "We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]). "And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]). Jerome "[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man" (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]). "We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock" (ibid., 21). Didymus the Blind "It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]). Ambrose of Milan "Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son" (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]). Pope Siricius I "You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king" (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]). Augustine "In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave" (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]). "It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?" (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]). "Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband" (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]). Leporius "We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary" (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]). Cyril of Alexandria "[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing" (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]). Pope Leo I "His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained" (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 450]). NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors. Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004 IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827 permission to publish this work is hereby granted. +Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004 |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 10, 2006 11:36:02 GMT -5
No serious and even moderately informed person gives this goofball stuff the time of day. Except us. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 10, 2006 19:47:07 GMT -5
You are right. Nor do we know all of Julius Caesar's movements, yet we are content with the histories we have of him. Et tu Franko?  No. We are content with what has been presented in the snipets of his life we know. If something else was discovered about Julius Ceasar we would rethink all we knew about him. Julius was great and a mean SOB all in one .... so anything we discover about him could be believable and/or conceivable. Jesus was pure, pristine .... if there was "absolute" proof of any indiscretion in His life it would be faced with opposition, denials, possibly cover-ups? Who knows. But Dan Brown does not say the resurrection did not happen. His (tall?) tale proports that Jesus has a bloodline that still exists. Michael Baigent (who took Brown to court) is the man who insists that the resurrection did not happen, that Ponctious Pilate and Jesus faked it. You mean to tell me the Son of God can spend 40 days and nights in the desert being tempted by Satan and not succombing, but he can't resist carnal urges?? What if the temptations of the devil were actually metaphors for Jesus' struggles to resist Mary and he remained celibate? OK. I have to have something cleared up .... was not Jesus conceived without the act of sex? The Immaculate Conception? If he has blood relatives (brothers and sisters) than Brown is right and there is a royal blood line for the King of the Jews. There was alot of begatting in the Bible ... that has to refer to sex. The Bible is ambigous has been my claim since I was 13. You can use it to prove Mary and Joeseph had sex, and you can use it to prove they didnt. Some would argue they are one-in-the same .... there is no distinction in the Holy Trinity. The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost are ONE. Jesus' word would be the Word of God. But the same Christian God has asked others to make sacrifices. Sacrifices they made willingly ... are you stating that the God that spoke to Abraham was not "your understanding of the Christian God". I don't mean to be saucy, ignorant, or disrespectful of people's faith ...but I would think that the arrival of the Messiah on earth would be a man of faith's ultimate conundrum. On the one hand they want to believe it, because the believe ... but today's society being as it is they also realize that there are wackos out there .... so do they believe and risk having their faith used against them, or do they pass it off and risk being wrong and in essence showing that their faith was not real. Let's not forget that the Jewish religion is still waiting for the Messiah. Jesus' people could be right. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jun 10, 2006 20:17:16 GMT -5
No serious and even moderately informed person gives this goofball stuff the time of day. Except us. Ya. heh heh heh. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 10, 2006 20:41:35 GMT -5
No. We are content with what has been presented in the snipets of his life we know. If something else was discovered about Julius Ceasar we would rethink all we knew about him. Julius was great and a mean SOB all in one .... so anything we discover about him could be believable and/or conceivable. Jesus was pure, pristine .... if there was "absolute" proof of any indiscretion in His life it would be faced with opposition, denials, possibly cover-ups? Who knows. If something new were discovered about Him then we would definitely have to rethink. that's the purpose behind study, no? I have no problem with something new being put on the table for discussion . . . in fact, wehn the Council of Nicea met is was for discussion, deliberation, and . . . well, conclusion, I guess. Brown suggests that the discoveries of Nag Hammadi prove a different Jesus, but the repudiation of the books come from the fact that the New Testament books as codified were (purportedly) written by those who were alive when Jesus was, whereas the Gnostic text of Nag Hammadi were written late. Brown also uses the Dead Sea Scrolls in his thesis, even though they do not mention Jesus in any way. But as I say, find me some new writing that can withstand scrutiny (as the Gospel of Judas did not) and I'll be open to discussion and debate. I may need to re-read. Perhaps it was by implication? Regardless, he dismisses the codified and accepted record. And it is a direct bloodline that he isnsists on -- children from Jesus and Mary. Not a new thought (nor is the thought that the temptations were metaphors for Jesus' struggles to resist "the beloved disciple" -- John -- and defeat his homosexual urges). But again, direct bloodline. Jews who were married were expected to propogate the race -- and those who did not were looked down upon as having some form of sin in their lives (usually the woman's fault for being barren). Yes . . . according to traditional Christianity's understanding of the Bible. Some suggest that Matthew, who primarily wrote to teach the Jews about Jesus the Messiah, misinterpretted Isaiah's prophecy about "a virgin shall give birth" -- proper translation is "a young woman". I think that the Holy Spirit's work in conception was also seen to make sure that Jesus was not tainted with original sin (does this mean that the original sin gene is passed on by the father and not the mother? Perhaps this shows the need for Mary's conception outside the realm of seuxal activity). As THab has corrected us, it refers to Mary. See above. Yup. That is a whole 'nuther discussion, giving us hours and hours of off-topic discussion. I'll refrain, other than to say "3 persons, 3 personalities, but 1 God". Which is where Jews scoff at Christians as do Muslims. No, what I said was that a person coming to earth claiming to be God should be dismissed, and someone claiming to speak for God should have his or her teachings and claims and requests examined. And for that I go back to Wesley's Quadrilateral: scripture, tradition, reason and experience, all working together.A conundrum indeed. Indeed. Christianity (especially us born-agin'ers) are with you in this. Our understanding: the Jewish Messiah came to earth once (Jesus) and was missed, but He will reutrn. They will recognise Him then; we see this as the parousia, the Second Coming, the beginning of the end and the end of the beginning. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jun 10, 2006 20:48:38 GMT -5
The Canon of the Bible
All Christians realize that if God has revealed Himself by communicating His will to man, man must be able to know with assurance where that revelation lies. Hence the need for a list (i.e. canon) of books of the Bible. In other words, man needs to know without error (i.e. infallibly) what the books of the Bible are. There must be an authority which will make that decision.
The canon of the Bible refers to the definitive list of the books which are considered to be divine revelation and included therein. A canon distinguishes what is revealed and divine from what is not revealed and human. "Canon" (Greek kanon) means a reed; a straight rod or bar; a measuring stick; something serving to determine, rule, or measure. Because God did not explicitly reveal what books are the inspired books of the Bible, title by title, to anyone, we must look to His guidance in discovering the canon of the Bible.
Jesus has told us that he has not revealed all truths to us.
Jn 16:12-13
I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth.
Jesus then told us how he was planning to assist us in knowing other truths.
Jn 14:16-17
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.
Jn 15:26
When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me.
The New Testament writers sensed how they handled truth-bearing under the influence of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth.
1 Cor 15:3-4
For I handed on (paredoka) to you as of first importance what I also received ...
2 Tim 2:2
And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust (parathou) to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.
There was a constant history of faithful people from Paul's time through the Apostolic and Post Apostolic Church.
Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.
The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon.
Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today's canon.
The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus' Decree.
Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.
The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.
The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.
Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.
The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.
There was no canon of scripture in the early Church; there was no Bible. The Bible is the book of the Church; she is not the Church of the Bible. It was the Church--her leadership, faithful people--guided by the authority of the Spirit of Truth which discovered the books inspired by God in their writing. The Church did not create the canon; she discerned the canon. Fixed canons of the Old and New Testaments, hence the Bible, were not known much before the end of the 2nd and early 3rd century.
Catholic Christians together with Protestant and Evangelical Christians hold the same canon of the New Testament, 27 books, all having been originally written in the Greek language.
Catholic Christians accept the longer Old Testament canon, 46 books, from the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation of the Alexandrian Canon.
Protestant and Evangelical Christians, from the Reformers onward, accept the shorter Old Testament canon, 39 books, from the Hebrew Palestinian Canon. Jews have the same canon as Protestants.
Canonical books are those books which have been acknowledged as belonging to the list of books the Church considers to be inspired and to contain a rule of faith and morals. Some criteria used to determine canonicity were
special relation to God, i.e., inspiration;
apostolic origin;
used in Church services, i.e., used by the community of believers guided by the Holy Spirit.
Other terms for canonical books should be distinguished: the protocanonical books, deuterocanonical books, and the apocryphal books.
The protocanonical (from the Greek proto meaning first) books are those books of the Bible that were admitted into the canon of the Bible with little or no debate (e.g., the Pentateuch of the Old Testament and the Gospels)
The deuterocanonical (from the Greek deutero meaning second) books are those books of the Bible that were under discussion for a while until doubts about their canonicity were resolved (e.g. Sirach and Baruch of the Old Testament, and the Johannine epistles of the New Testament).
The apocryphal (from the Greek apokryphos meaning hidden) books have multiple meanings:
complimentary meaning - that the sacred books were too exalted for the general public;
pejorative meaning - that the orthodoxy of the books were questioned;
heretical meaning - that the books were forbidden to be read; and lastly
neutral meaning - simply noncanonical books, the meaning the word has today.
Another word, pseudepigrapha (from the Greek meaning false writing) is used for works clearly considered to be false.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 11, 2006 19:52:35 GMT -5
If something new were discovered about Him then we would definitely have to rethink. that's the purpose behind study, no? Agreed. "We" would have to rethink, not blindly accept what the church tells us. I would suggest that the Bible should also withstand the same scrutiny. When words like "accepted record", "purportedly written" , and "codified" ..... well it leaves a sour taste in my mouth, because they are fancy words for "we don't know, but this is the way we wish it to be". The Council of Nicea was a gathering of 300 bishops in 323 (?) AD. I believe (you can correct me if I am wrong) that their main objective was to condemn the beliefs of a Catholic priest who voiced the opinion that "since the Father begat the Son, then the Father must have a beginning" and thereby the creation of the Bible is not true. With this as their main objective .... to dispel free thought, then I question the objective behind their codifying. If I asked you to tell me what writings were absolute truth from 1683 (323 years ago), it would be a challenge today .... let alone 1683 years ago! I am not saying the Council of Nicea were wrong , but I am saying they had their own agenda .... to solidfy the Bible, not question it. The Arian Controversy shows they did not want the Bible questioned. Also the Council of Nicea did not sign their decision with "It is decided" or "In conclusion" ... the signed it with "the Catholic Church believes". 300 people decided what the churh believes? (NOTE: if I have any facts wrong, please forgive me .... this is from classes taken eons ago and very little research) I dont think there is any inference. I believe he puts forth the notion that Mary escapes to France after the crucifixion. It is possible that she was pregnant at the time of crucifixion. Why does she have to conceive after crucufixion? A king is a king by any other name. The direct royal line extends from the same starting point. Elizabeth is not a direct line from Victoria, yet Elizabeth is still queen. King Edward abdicated for George VI to get to the throne. (I think) .... So upon Jesus' crucifixion the oldest brother would take the throne to keep the royal line going. (I am just teasing here, it is a stretch .... I know what you mean). I still contend that if Mary could conceive without sex, then why not Mary Magdalen. It should be a simple task for someone who turned water to wine, rock to bread, fed thousands with one loaf, healed lepresy, walked on water ..... EDIT: I thought about this direct line angle again and something came to me. In the book Brown puts forth that the "feminine" is to be revered. The feminine is the focal point of the entire book really. So it would make sense to me that the royal line would spring forth from "the feminine" - ie Mary. So if Mary and Joeseph had other children, this would be a direct line from the feminine and make sense from Brown's claims. Again, Jesus would not have to have sex to make Mary Magdalen pregnant if he wanted. So IF Mary and Jesus were married THEN it is still possible for Jesus to not have sin in his life. "A virgin shall give birth" ... hmmm .... This was said by Isaiah when? How long before Jesus' birth? Was Mary still a virgin then? What I am getting at is that when Isaiah said it , Mary could have been a virgin. Another question would be "When was conception?" Was Mary pregnant for 9 months? Well Jesus can not conceive .... but it refers to Mary's conception of Jesus doesn't it? Or are you saying it refers to Mary's mother's conception of her? If so what is Jesus' conception refered to as? Yes. They should be examined .... but dismissed? If we are awaiting the "Second Coming" then ipso facto are we awaiting to dismiss the Messiah? Yup. A conundrum that will quickly be a SNAFU. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jun 11, 2006 20:53:35 GMT -5
Ah, discussion to distract from an ever-growing list of chores on a cold day . . . Well, I admit I am trying to play devil advocate here. But it is a valid point that we do not know Jesus' every movement. I think the Catholic Church has move issues with the "identified" conspiracy (Paul?). [/quote] Yes ? |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 11, 2006 20:54:12 GMT -5
I've only a day before HabRus gets pushed into the background (how tragic is that!) for a few, so I'll take the opportunity to answer as best I can. "We" would have to rethink, not blindly accept what the church tells us. Agreed. This is where I differ from THab: I do not see the Pope as speaking directly from God; nor do I merely accept my own denomination's teachings "because they say". Inquiry and deliberation and study and questions are in fact welcome and encouraged. That's what helps us to know why we believe what we believe. I used the terms carefully and advisedly so as not to come across as dogmatic (even though I realize that I am). If the terms trouble I shall refrain from using them. Accepted does indeed mean "as far as we understand and believe". "Codified" means that the Council, after much deliberation and debate, felt or believed that certain books and letters were the best . . . portrayal? depiction? explanation? [take your choice or find another word] of who Jesus was. I'm not sure that dispelling free thought was their intent as much as to come to answer the question "who is Jesus?". With so many images and concepts of Jesus being promoted, the church gathered many scholars together to come up with an understanding that could be accepted by the majority (note that even in the Catholic Church there is ongoing debate on many issues -- and this is good for the church, to help it grow and be viable in society). There was no Bible before the Council met. There were many gospels, many letters, many teachings, many questions. Some great teaching [The Didache, for example] was left out, because it did not meet the criteria set (and criteria had to be set for the selection process to go on). I'm going to accept your memory (I think you are mostly right and am not going to take the time to research -- shame on me!). I would think that the 300 were the theologians and scholars of the day and were the best equipped to make the decision and leave it at that. Or maybe she was pregnant with someone else's child and blamed it on Jesus. Or maybe she was polyandrous and had a number of the other disciples with her. It's all speculation . . . who knows? There are no records and was no understanding of this happening (oh, wait, it was hidden by the church all these years -- I forgot! ). You are right in this. Counter: there is no record of it (we know Brown's response) and no reason for it. Isaiah prophesied ~716 BC . . . good odds that Mary was not yet born. March 25. In all likelihood (speculation). Things were mostly normal . . . except, of course, her conception. I think the Immaculate Conception refers to the fact that even though Mary's conception was brought about by normal means, God protected her from original sin, which would by extension mean that Jesus was preserved from original sin. This is a Catholic doctrine officially pronounced in 1854. Jesus' conception is refered to as a miracle. I come from a biblical perspective, that someone who claims to be God or even the Christ is to be seen as Antichrist. The Christian Jesus as first Messiah came as Prince of Peace to save people from sin. My understanding of the Jewish Messiah is that of a conquering king who will save His people from the nations around . . . which (according to the book of Revelation) is what Jesus will do when He returns . . . so fulfilling the Christian Second coming and Jewish Messianic hopes. I'm open to someone with a Jewish background straightening me out on this, though. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jun 11, 2006 21:59:56 GMT -5
If something new were discovered about Him then we would definitely have to rethink. that's the purpose behind study, no? Agreed. "We" would have to rethink, not blindly accept what the church tells us. I would suggest that the Bible should also withstand the same scrutiny. When words like "accepted record", "purportedly written" , and "codified" ..... well it leaves a sour taste in my mouth, because they are fancy words for "we don't know, but this is the way we wish it to be". The Council of Nicea was a gathering of 300 bishops in 323 (?) AD. I believe (you can correct me if I am wrong) that their main objective was to condemn the beliefs of a Catholic priest who voiced the opinion that "since the Father begat the Son, then the Father must have a beginning" and thereby the creation of the Bible is not true. With this as their main objective .... to dispel free thought, then I question the objective behind their codifying. If I asked you to tell me what writings were absolute truth from 1683 (323 years ago), it would be a challenge today .... let alone 1683 years ago! I am not saying the Council of Nicea were wrong , but I am saying they had their own agenda .... to solidfy the Bible, not question it. The Arian Controversy shows they did not want the Bible questioned. Also the Council of Nicea did not sign their decision with "It is decided" or "In conclusion" ... the signed it with "the Catholic Church believes". 300 people decided what the churh believes? (NOTE: if I have any facts wrong, please forgive me .... this is from classes taken eons ago and very little research) I dont think there is any inference. I believe he puts forth the notion that Mary escapes to France after the crucifixion. It is possible that she was pregnant at the time of crucifixion. Why does she have to conceive after crucufixion? A king is a king by any other name. The direct royal line extends from the same starting point. Elizabeth is not a direct line from Victoria, yet Elizabeth is still queen. King Edward abdicated for George VI to get to the throne. (I think) .... So upon Jesus' crucifixion the oldest brother would take the throne to keep the royal line going. (I am just teasing here, it is a stretch .... I know what you mean). I still contend that if Mary could conceive without sex, then why not Mary Magdalen. It should be a simple task for someone who turned water to wine, rock to bread, fed thousands with one loaf, healed lepresy, walked on water ..... EDIT: I thought about this direct line angle again and something came to me. In the book Brown puts forth that the "feminine" is to be revered. The feminine is the focal point of the entire book really. So it would make sense to me that the royal line would spring forth from "the feminine" - ie Mary. So if Mary and Joeseph had other children, this would be a direct line from the feminine and make sense from Brown's claims. Again, Jesus would not have to have sex to make Mary Magdalen pregnant if he wanted. So IF Mary and Jesus were married THEN it is still possible for Jesus to not have sin in his life. "A virgin shall give birth" ... hmmm .... This was said by Isaiah when? How long before Jesus' birth? Was Mary still a virgin then? What I am getting at is that when Isaiah said it , Mary could have been a virgin. Another question would be "When was conception?" Was Mary pregnant for 9 months? Well Jesus can not conceive .... but it refers to Mary's conception of Jesus doesn't it? Or are you saying it refers to Mary's mother's conception of her? If so what is Jesus' conception refered to as? Yes. They should be examined .... but dismissed? If we are awaiting the "Second Coming" then ipso facto are we awaiting to dismiss the Messiah? Yup. A conundrum that will quickly be a SNAFU. If Christ was divine, then there can be no new revelation from any source whatever that will in any way contradict the deposit of faith. Period. That would prove conclusively that Christ was not divine, for he promised to guide and protect the church form error. That is actually the error of protestantism, which believes that the church could have been led into error. Sin yes, error in faith or morals, impossibe on the authority of the author, Christ. If Christ was not divine, then error was and is possible and Christianity is a farce. When you speak of blindly believing what the church teaches, then it is clear that you do not accept as true either the witness of the apostles who were with Christ, or their authority and that of their successors, as claimed to be received from Christ, are not cognizant of either the nature of Christ, the nature of church authority, or the fact that anything revealed by God cannot ever in principle be against reason, by definition. Also. faith is a virtue as well as a gift. The gift of faith is freely given by God, but it can also be rejected. What is blind to you is anything but blind. There are things we can do and not do that will result in a loss of faith, or God may not grant the gift of faith to a person. YOu cannot manufacture faith. Far from being "blind", I find Catholicism specifically to be the only belief system in the history of man that is completely consistent with everything I have learned through reason and study. What you have to believe to hold that Jesus did not rise from the dead is what I find to be well beyond reason and life experience. Christ was either divine. insane, or a massive fraud. Insanity and fraud don't seem to carry much intellectual legs. Much of protestantism has considerable difficulty with the authority of the Catholic church. To me the record of early church history and the teachings, commands and promises of Christ make such a postion impossible. Faith is a reasonned assent of reasoning creatures and is hardly blind. The authority of the church has the authority of her head, Christ as of course she must, and seeing this is not a blind following. By definition, if her claims are true, not seeing the legitimate authority of the church is blindness. As he said, "He who hears you, hears me. " Christ's parable of the seeds, deals with people and their responses to the gift of faith, some fall on good soil, some on pathways, some is lost in the cares and anxieties of this life. Worldliness or concern about the opinion of others can be another impediment as can particularly in our culture. sexual obsession or other addictions. Blindness can be willful. Blaise Pascal thought that this is usually the case. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jun 11, 2006 22:03:48 GMT -5
Ah, discussion to distract from an ever-growing list of chores on a cold day . . . I think the Catholic Church has move issues with the "identified" conspiracy (Paul?). Yes ?[/quote] Yes? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 12, 2006 10:17:10 GMT -5
I used the terms carefully and advisedly so as not to come across as dogmatic (even though I realize that I am). If the terms trouble I shall refrain from using them. Accepted does indeed mean "as far as we understand and believe". "Codified" means that the Council, after much deliberation and debate, felt or believed that certain books and letters were the best . . . portrayal? depiction? explanation? [take your choice or find another word] of who Jesus was. It appears to me, that they wanted the best accounts (and truly that is all it is ..accounts, since there was no record) that met their needs. 300 catholic bishops sitting around deciding what was best for the Catholic faith. I wonder why others outside the catholic church were not invited to give their accounts ... why wasnt Aristotle invited? He was a "scholar" ... or were they afraid they wouldn't hear what they wanted to? Also, Jesus touched the lives of more than just catholic bishops. In fact, I would go as far to say that the decendants of the lepers that Jesus healed, the people he fed, the vast majority of the ordinary he came into contact would have a clearer image of who Jesus was that the catholic bishops. When I say dispel free thought that is going too far ... I mean they did not want to hear other interpretations of the scriptures. (Remember I keep falling back to the ambiguity of the Bible) The Council put Arius on "trial - so to speak" by quoting scriptures to prove his way of thought was wrong. Arius used the same scriptures against the bishops by showing how it could be interpreted another way .... yet they did not want to hear that. I believe the 283 bishops, managed to "convince" (I prefer the word threaten, but I have no proof ) all but 3 Arian bishops that it was wrong to interpret the scriptures different from what was accepted. Hmmmm ... seems that they wer enot there to discuss anything, seems they were there to stop discussion from spreading. It is the criteria I question. What was the criteria? Story "A" makes Jesus seem like a great man , but Story "B" is iffy - let's scrap Story "B"? People should have access to all the information, and let them make their own minds up. I tend to think they would have been the 300 theologians the church chose. Not necessarily the best scholars or thinkers. Now that's a good idea. No proof, plausible .... I like it! But hasn't the church dispelled the myth that Mary Magdelan was a prostitute? But now we are finally getting into one of those "what if's" I was referring to. ;D. But which Apostle to pin the blame on .... hmmmm? My money is on either Judas (Jesus should never have trusted that guy) or Thomas (that explains all that doubt - he can't have risen from the dead, he'll find out what I have done!!) Actually, I think the Bible provides enough conclusive evidence (if you believe the Bible) to show that Jesus was not born on December 25. It is more likely he was born in April or May. The shephards were watching their flock by night. Even in the Middle East they would have taken their sheep inside during the winter months to protect them from the cold and rain. Astrologers have dated the "star" that was in the sky when Jesus was born to be Jupiter and Saturn which occurs on earth every 805 years. Working backwards they discovered that the most likely time this happened was around 4-6 AD. |
|
No. We are content with what has been presented in the snipets of his life we know. If something else was discovered about Julius Ceasar we would rethink all we knew about him. Julius was great and a mean SOB all in one .... so anything we discover about him could be believable and/or conceivable. Jesus was pure, pristine .... if there was "absolute" proof of any indiscretion in His life it would be faced with opposition, denials, possibly cover-ups? Who knows.