Posted on 09/27/2001 6:13:58 PM PDT by malakhi
What I mean is written documentation, recorded history. Of course, archaeological evidence goes much farther back.
I would put the last writings in the 90's C.E. But obviously the church had long been evangelizing to the gentiles by then. I don't know the precise point when the church went from being predominantly Jewish to predominantly gentile. But as more people joined who lacked the cultural context of Judaism, the understanding of the texts gradually changed. I think it was a gradual rather than a sudden process.
sara.. I was reading in the CE, trying to find out the succession order of the popes, and by accident ran into this.
Please comment.
Under Peter, Saint
Simon settled in Capharnaum, where he was living with his mother-in-law in his own house (Matthew 8:14; Luke 4:38) at the beginning of Christ's public ministry (about A.D. 26-28). Simon was thus married, and, according to Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, III, vi, ed. Dindorf, II, 276), had children. The same writer relates the tradition that Peter's wife suffered martyrdom (ibid., VII, xi ed. cit., III, 306). Concerning these facts, adopted by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., III, xxxi) from Clement, the ancient Christian literature which has come down to us is silent. Simon pursued in Capharnaum the profitable occupation of fisherman in Lake Genesareth, possessing his own boat (Luke 5:3).
(NOTE) Since I have pointed out previously how Euseius could not be totally trusted in his conclusions, I will not consider it proof of my personal theory of why Peter was considered the leader because of his age and position in life.
"Excommunication of God's Children"? Oh, boo hoo.
You are giving a hypothetical situation that is completely inconceivable. The Church has never had women priests. The Church, following the example of Christ, never had priestesses. The Church has no power to ordain a woman. It might as well try to ordain a German Shepherd, for all effect it would have. Try to understand the idea of an infallible institution, founded by God Himself and given protection against teaching error. Just try it.
The Crusades and the Inquisition are not matters of faith, are not matters having to deal with the most sacred of our mysteries. Who is a priest is a very important part of a sacramental Church. It is its most basic functionary, without a priest a people starve for sacraments. This type of teaching can not change because it is not in the Church's power to change.
The Inquisitions (plural actually, did you know that?) were more about secular powers than they were about the Church Herself. Popes tried to limit the power of these runaway tribunals, to little effect at times. Regardless, we are talking about disciplinary matters, not those pertaining to faith or morals.
I can't imagine anyone today even bringing up the Crusades. I can't believe it. Do you think the Church was wrong to try to rescue the Holy Lands from the clutches of barbarian Muslims? Do you not perceive the threat to western civilization (but I repeat myself), to Christendom from Islam?
Certainly there were abuses, particularly to innocents along the way to the final destination, but no venture is perfect.
Also, I am not a Protestant. I am not a Catholic. I am a Christian. I do not exclude any from the church of God who is a saved individual. The Bible states that we can only discern children of God through immorality and the testimony of Christ (i.e. there was no resurrection. Christ was not a man. These sorts of things). The rest is up to the Holy Spirit. We must trust the Holy Spirit to discern the rest. The Holy Spirit is in charge. We have no authority to excommunicate or not have fellowship with anyone for any other reason.
Maybe for some of us the vague "testimony of Christ" you cite includes things like the role of Sacraments, the priesthood, confession of certain creeds, the authority of the Church, etc.
So if someone has different interpretations or doctrinal beliefs, that is no reason to refuse him from the Church. Some beleive in baptism by sprinkling, some by immersion. This is no reason to start a new denomination. The church's strength is in it's unity, and once a church begins to make distinctions on doctrines and refuse fellowship, then the enemy has won, because we are no longer united.
Kumbaya! Our unity is in our diversity. Whatever makes you feel good, man. Sacraments, no sacraments. Priests, no priests. Priestesses, no priestesses. Symbolic communion, Real Presence. Whatever man. We're all Christians. Kumbaya.
What about vmatt? Do you refuse him cause he thinks Jesus is a second God? What about biblewonk who isn't sure when Jesus became God? (Maybe at His Baptism, certainly not in the womb) Does it matter what we've learned about Christ?
SD
So if even the giving of the Law is a myth, it doesn't matter? I'm not buying that. Something has to be true, be real. Or else the Law is just the combined wisdom of the tribe, laid down with a fraudulent imprimitur from God.
Maybe Jonah wasn't really inside a whale, maybe Lot's wife didn't really turn to salt. But you have to believe that God actually gave the Law to Moses.
SD
Havoc does seem to behave like Peter being in Rome is important or seomthing. Thanks for stating with clarity that it matters not a whit to who Peter was or who the present Pope is.
SD
Dude. All who accept Christ are also guilty of His Blood. He hanged there because of your sins and mine. If you never sinned it wouldn't be necessary to have the sacrifice.
Examine yourself.
SD
I understand that. What I'm trying to understand is when is the earliest it could have started and when is the latest it would have been finished.
It couldn't have started before the last of the texts were actually written because the author was still around to correct any misinterpretation. It must have been "finished" by the time of the council of Nicea as that is the time that nature of the incarnation and resurrection were settled.
You're positing that the Church, over time, came to misunderstand its own scripture. The only evidence of this that you've offerred so far is evidence of a development in doctrine during the time that the writings themselves were taking place. But if your theory is true, then the misinterpretation couldn't have started until after the writings, unless the authors themselves were misunderstanding what they were writing, which doesn't seem plausible.
How can you use writings that were completed before the process started as evidence of the process itself?
Thanks for the clarification. Gentiles are just as much children of God as are the Jews. They simply have different roles. This was true even before the life of Jesus.
The law is no longer valid.
So you say. God says otherwise. No offense, but I think I'll listen to Him.
Just as you said, when the Messiah comes, certain Laws would no longer be needed. Based on your logic, that would be rejecting the Law. These laws aren't being rejected because they have been fulfilled.
You misunderstood me. The Law would still be in effect. What would be different is that people would not be violating it. It is precisely NOT a rejection of the law; it precisely IS the perfect observance of the Law.
A perfect law is something that is true eternally. It is a sin to murder someone. That was true before God gave us the Law. It is a sin to worship other gods. That was true before God gave us the Law. It is a sin to covet. That was true before God gave us the Law. But the distinction between clean and the unclean wasn't always true. Prior to God giving us the Law, it was legal to eat unclean animals. Which would mean that this law may have a statute of limitations.
There is nothing in the scriptures which divides the moral law from the ritual law. There is only the Law. Nowhere does the Law say that certain of the practices are optional. And there is no "statute of limitations". On the contrary, God commanded us to obey the Law, and not to vary from it either to the right or to the left.
Will you still observe all the feasts once your Messiah comes? Will you still sacrifice?? Will you still observe the Sabbath? Will you still make distinctions between clean and unclean??
Yes. Yes. Yes. And yes.
Also, Can you comment on the excerpt I wrote from Nee. Do you agree or disagree with what was said?
I disagree, of course. The purpose of the Law is not to "enunciate the teaching" of the Christian scriptures. The purpose of the Law is to be obeyed. Keep in mind that the Law was given to the Jews, not to the gentiles. YOU are under no obligation to keep kosher or to observe any of the other ritual laws. Gentiles are under the noahide covenant.
God gave the Law as part of His Covenant with Israel. He gave it in order that it be obeyed. He said that His Covenant with Israel was everlasting. He told us to continue to obey the Law, even if a prophet or wonderworker came along who told us otherwise, even if they gave signs. We are to cleave to the Law no matter what. (Read Deuteronomy 13). The deconstructionist contortions of Paul notwithstanding, this really is not difficult to understand.
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.