Posted on 12/16/2006 5:18:34 AM PST by NYer
Last April, the National Geographic Society made headlines with a completed translation of the second century gnostic text known as the Gospel of Judas financed by the society and heavily promoted with tie-in books and a TV documentary that would challenge Christianity's traditional understanding of the relationship between Jesus and his betrayer.
Its new special, "The Secret Lives of Jesus," makes similar sensational claims, airing as part of the "Explorer" series Sunday, Dec. 17, 9-10 p.m. EST on cable's National Geographic Channel.
Despite its provocative title, however, the program as with the Judas expose provides no explosive revelations but merely rehashes the same old theological chestnuts refuted by the church over the centuries.
Examining the so-called "lost gospels" through re-enactments and interviews with scholars, the film asks if Matthew, Mark, Luke and John tell the "whole" Jesus story, suggesting that these alternative versions which offer a radically different portrait of Christ -- may help "fill in the blanks." The idea that these ancient texts provide startling new information is a bit misleading. Church fathers such as St. Irenaeus, who wrote against the Gospel of Judas in 180 A.D., knew of many of these and rejected them as false.
Among the manuscripts considered is the apocryphal infancy Gospel of James, a second-century collection of miraculous tales about Jesus' youth that lacks the historical veracity of the canonical Gospels. (The book was regarded as spurious by Origen of Alexandria in the third century.) One episode dramatized involves Jesus bringing clay pigeons to life. Another has a young, rather malicious Jesus striking a boy dead for bumping into him.
Of equally dubious purview is "The Unknown Life of Jesus," a 19th-century translation of an ancient Tibetan scroll which allegedly chronicles Jesus' travels through India during his "hidden years" (between the ages 12 and 30) to learn from Hindu mystics.
Given the popularity of "The Da Vinci Code," it's not unexpected that the survey includes discussion of gnostic texts such as the Gospels of Mary and Philip that allude to Mary Magdalene's special, possibly intimate, relationship with Jesus. But unlike Dan Brown, this program does not attribute any conspiratorial villainy to the church, and even counters many of Brown's bogus assertions: One expert, for instance, stresses that there's no credible evidence to support the Jesus-Mary Magdalene theory.
It is, however, suggested that these alternative versions constituted a pluralism of valid competing forms of Christianity vying for dominance in the first centuries after Christ. While doctrinal questions continued to be refined among the early Christian communities, this image hardly does justice to the capacity of those communities to sort out and affirm the essentials of the faith authoritatively taught from the beginning.
Even more disputable is the contention forwarded that the gnostic texts, though written much later than the canonical gospels, have something of equal value to say about Jesus. While these texts are of certain historical interest, they tell us more about the people who wrote them than about Jesus.
Alright, I just noticed that you are Orthodox and not Catholic. My apologies for the mistake. So, the amendment is that my latter comments are really directed to Roman Catholics and not the Orthodox. The underlying principle is the same. The fact that we do not have a man-led centralized power structure, whether iron-fisted or less so, does not make us responsible for people going off into crazy cults. The exact same thing has happened under Protestantism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy from the beginning. Forgetting about the original Protestants, there is a long list of groups that broke away, practically RIGHT AWAY.
Maybe that's why the authority, especially in the RCC, tightened after a time, and kept tightening. However, it seems to me that this would be admitting a failure in God's original set up and system.
Well, that's not how I would express what I think my understanding is. Perhaps you could interpret on some inconsequential matters, but I'm pretty sure that you are not allowed to disagree in any way with the consensus patrum. While the actual number of holdings might be relatively small, I would imagine that their necessary implications would be pretty broad based. (Perhaps this is more true in the RCC.) Can you think of a couple of "bigger" issues upon which two good Orthodox may interpret differently? That is, outside of Revelation, since I don't think anyone has rules on that. :)
Here's what our church feels is a good basis for being able to witness to folks: ... [5 years of seminary courses]
That is a very impressive basis. :) Does your church really say that one should not witness without this kind of education? It's funny, I would tell a new believer that if he knows enough to believe in the Gospel of Christ, then he knows enough to witness it. Of course I would want him to learn more, and continue learning as I do, but my church's attitude is to turn them loose right away if they are so moved. :) Many times new believers can make very effective evangelists.
Thanks for posting the curriculum. It was interesting to read. Would all the Russian classes be replaced with Greek classes at a different seminary? I was just surprised at the emphasis on Russian history and that sort of thing. I mean, would someone graduating from this seminary be qualified to start serving in a Greek Orthodox Church?
Bolted? I believe you have it backwards.
Yes, "the Church" authoritatively interprets scripture, but now that Rome and Constantinople destroyed her unity, followed much later by serious Christians' attempts at reform (whom Rome separated herself from as well) who exactly is the Church?
If we wish to locate the Church founded by Jesus, we need to locate the one that has the four chief marks or qualities of his Church. The Church we seek must be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.
God has given man "free will". The Church cannot overide the will of God.
In addition, and using your logic, all the unworthy priests who have ever lived are a direct reflection on your faith. Why didn't you stop them?
This follows the same logic as above. Free will. Applying your logic then, if God knows everything and He knows that someone is about to murder someone else, why doesn't He stop them?
By his grace Jesus makes the Church holy, just as he is holy. This doesnt mean that each member is always holy. Jesus said there would be both good and bad members in the Church (John 6:70), and not all the members would go to heaven (Matt. 7:2123).
But the Church itself is holy because it is the source of holiness and is the guardian of the special means of grace Jesus established, the sacraments (cf. Eph. 5:26).
Matt 16:18,19 is not "man made"
You think it failed and became heretical. IOW, the promises of Jesus were unreliable. Of course, that makes Jesus Satan
Never, just certain interpretations of it. :) Wouldn't you say the same?
I don't see how one can misinterpret those words.
FWIW
The rock (St Peter's faith) is not the same as the keys (given to the church).
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
I agree, no one can. That's why I think it is unfair for us to be criticized for the cults that break away from Biblical Protestant Christianity. That's the issue I was responding to.
Applying your logic then, if God knows everything and He knows that someone is about to murder someone else, why doesn't He stop them?
Because it is clear that God has decided to allow sin in the world. Perhaps He has a millions reasons for this. One that I can think of is that the existence of sin helps believers know, appreciate, and love God to a higher degree. My point in saying what I said, though, was the same as the above. It is unfair to diminish or criticize my faith based on the actions and beliefs of others who do not hold my faith.
Jesus said there would be both good and bad members in the Church (John 6:70), and not all the members would go to heaven (Matt. 7:2123).
I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of John 6:70. That was a direct reference to Judas. I don't see any direct relation to "the Church", which wasn't even established yet. My view is that Judas was never a member of "the Church". He was "chosen" for a specific purpose, but he was never a believer.
Again, in Matt. 7, Jesus doesn't reference members of "the Church", even implicitly. He only says "many" or "those". I do not think He was talking about actual believers. I WOULD agree that there are many who call themselves members of the RCC, AND many who call themselves members of the Baptist church (my church) who will not enter Heaven. I think that is totally separate from being a member of "God's Church".
While I happen to also think it is "man-made", the actual phrase I used was "man-led". Of course, we will have an honest disagreement on the interpretation of this passage. My view is that God would not choose to build His Church on the single person of a sinner. At least we can agree that Peter was a sinner. :)
True, but I wasn't talking about teaching a Sunday School class, I was talking about witnessing the faith to others. Since we believe that the basics of faith are simple enough for a child to understand, AND we don't have the additional complexity of formal Tradition, we think it is fine for newbies to go tell what they know, to give a reason for their faiths. THAT is Biblical, isn't it? :)
OK, sounds good. I didn't really think I was uncovering some sort of controversy. I was thinking that I've been told that theologically speaking, "Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy". So, I just wondered if given the heavy emphasis on Russian studies that you posted in that curriculum, whether a graduate of a Greek seminary would come away with the same theology, "close enough".
"I was thinking that I've been told that theologically speaking, "Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy". So, I just wondered if given the heavy emphasis on Russian studies that you posted in that curriculum, whether a graduate of a Greek seminary would come away with the same theology, "close enough"."
The theology is identical. There are differences in praxis among the churches, most of which are culturally based. In the Greek Orthodox seminary at Brookline, all the seminarians have to become proficient in Greek and have a working knowledge of Greek history because, as Kawaii said, as priests they will be serving a community and in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, most of the communicants are to one degree or another Greek, the demographics of my parish to the contrary notwithstanding.
*Agreed. And the New Testament teaches us to bring our disagreements to the Church and to hear the decision of the Church; and, if we do not hear the Church, we are to be treated as publicans ect
And, as you well know, the Church, which wrote the NT, has always taught that Jesus was quite clear about building His Church upon Kepha/Cephas/Peter, the Rock
So, what's your beef?...:)
The theology is no different. By definition, in order for one bishop to be in communion (literally speaking, Eucharistic communion) with another bishop is for the two bishops to recognize that both of them teach the same theology the Church taught everywhere and awlays, just as the Apostles taught the same faith, thereby assuring Apostolic Succession.
Just as the Christian Canon was established by the same process of concordance (concensus) among the Fathers of the Church, assuring us that all that is the New Testament is the word of our Lord Jesus Christ, taught by the Apostles.
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.