Posted on 04/17/2015 12:12:16 PM PDT by RnMomof7
Though the four gospels have been regarded as canonical since Irenaeus in the 2nd century,[1] Harnack—like earlier German scholars—rejected the Gospel of John as without historical value regarding Jesus' life:
"In particular, the fourth Gospel, which does not emanate or profess to emanate from the apostle John, cannot be taken as an historical authority in the ordinary meaning of the word. The author of it acted with sovereign freedom, transposed events and put them in a strange light, drew up the discourses himself, and illustrated great thoughts by imaginary situations. Although, therefore, his work is not altogether devoid of a real, if scarcely recognisable, traditional element, it can hardly make any claim to be considered an authority for Jesus' history; only little of what he says can be accepted, and that little with caution. On the other hand, it is an authority of the first rank for answering the question, What vivid views of Jesus’ person, what kind of light and warmth, did the Gospel disengage?"[2][3
Harnack denied the possibility of miracles but argued that Jesus may well have performed acts of healing that seemed miraculous: "That the earth in its course stood still; that a she-ass spoke; that a storm was quieted by a word, we do not believe, and we shall never again believe; but that the lame walked, the blind saw, and the deaf heard will not be so summarily dismissed as an illusion."[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_von_Harnack#Theology
Then stop your pals from posting them. I enjoy looking at them. If you go to Italy, you’ll see the preserved tongues of saints on display.
As usual, you’re misreading what I wrote.
BWAHAHAHA!!!
A Catholic complaining about a “rigid” form of Chrisianity?
That is rich!!!!!!
They are not "more alive" than the born again believer. In the spiritual realm, the born again believer is just as alive as they are because we are all alive in Christ and you can't become more alive than that.
And look what happened when all those Catholic politicians got elected by Cathoilc constituents.
Our problems began when we LEFT that Protestant hertiage, not because of it.
Are you CAWW: Hello, Mcfly, Mcfly, Mcfly
And that was not the question I asked.
ealgeone:
First, you are reading into what you want to read into. Not trying to be flippant here, but I have to point out that I only cited Harnack as a Historian who is well versed in early Church history and as he correctly notes, no Church Father, Church Council, etc. ever denied veneration of relics and honoring dead saints. Second, while I did cite him as a historian, at no time in my post did I ever cite him in the context of theology nor do I share his theology
In summary, one can respect the scholarship of a Patristic Scholar while not agreeing with his theology. This is the context that I linked an article that cited Harnack. He was among the Protestant German Historical Critical scholars in terms of theology. I am well aware of that, nevertheless, that does not mean that his historical analysis of the subject at hand, i.e. veneration of relics and honoring deceased saints was wrong, because it is not.
Good day to you, you, as compared to some of your FR Protestant cohort always post in a respectful manner.
Are you Jesus?
Reason I posted him comments on John are to call into question his ability to properly understand church history.
If he can't agree that John is authentic it makes me call into question the remainder of his opinions.
See you around the board.
My, aren’t we touchy today!
Got a news flash for you, post in an open forum and it is fair game for any and all to reply.
There seems to be a lot of rigid stuff here. Care to visit Tebow Cure hospital with us? It might be a nice blessing.
Gamecock:
Well, I haven’t posted here in months. Most of the topics that show up here remind me of the movie ground hog day, the same stuff over and over again. This one, relics and honoring deceased saints is one that has not been posted about as much, or if it has, I just missed most of them since my time here since 2007.
With that said, the topic was veneration of relics and honoring dead saints. The discussion was between CAWW and myself and the question and discussion was about those and related topics [i.e. Resurrection of the dead]. Why all of a sudden these other folks decided to ping me with “not relevant points” to the what the original post was about is beyond me. However, it is, based on my time here, predictable. It is the pack of wolves mentality and the sniper type post mentality. One post quotes a passage from Matthew that is not relevant, the other one goes into a diatribe about Protestant Born again soteriorlogy.
None of those posts dealt with question of venerating relics and honoring deceased saints, nor did they address the question I posed to CAWW, which was “Did he/she believe in the Resurrection of the Dead”?
All I have heard is Crickets! and not relevant posts.
Amen. It is a disgusting practice.
That might aid the discussion a bit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.