Posted on 10/07/2005 8:38:02 AM PDT by Caleb1411
I just got my ESV and so far I really like it.
I'm struggling to understand what you mean.
I travel plenty, but I'm at a loss.
You agree that Bacon's a red herring and so's the Gospel of Thomas.
There are still Christians that follow older traditions, yes. Most Christians, actually, since about 90% of the Christians in the world are Catholic or Orthodox, and those traditions are as old as Christianity itself. (But they don't use the Gospel of Thomas either.)
The tomb where the body of Jesus lies?
And where is that?
I am flummoxed at what you're talking about.
Completely confused.
One question.
Have you ever read the Gospel of Thomas?
I'm just hoping that God needed him for the ultimate Praise band.
Bethsaida means house of fish....and Nicodemus means victory of the people...don[t know how they get ray out of that...
We've had discussions before, and I'll not repeat them here, but frankly, if you don't like the local PCA church, and don't want to drive, just about anything this side of the LDS or JWs is going to be better than what you have now. I have some of my most vigorous exchanges with Dispensationalists, but you'd be better off in a Bible Church than where you are now. In your metro area, you can even find two or 3 PCUSAs that are going to be far better than what you are doing now.
Brother, run, and don't look back. If your wife won't go, tell her you'll meet her for lunch.
And if you do want me to repeat myself on PCA options, let me know.
Ok, I understand.
Yes, there are indeed many Christian sects, and Christian sects have been murdering each other for centuries.
So have the non-religious devotees of government.
And so have bad-tempered individuals living alone on the moors and in the hills.
Now, when you say "the world's oldest Christian Church", you're taking a side in an historical debate. There were divisions in the early Church, and there are still today. This is nothing new. However, one of the important early divisions was the one that became the Catholic one, and that was calling itself "catholic" before the end of the first century.
Some early Christians trod the path of which you speak, but theirs is not the "oldest Christian church". It is as old as its Catholic twin, born at the same time. So, when you suggest that the Catholic church is "newer", that is not true. Likewise, when you point to "the language of Jesus", that makes two assumptions. One is that Jesus had only one language. There's no very good reason to believe that. The other is that one particular language is holier or more authentic than another. And there's no basis to believe that at all.
It is fine to have your religious preferences, and if you want to take up the cause of one of the very earliest Christian sects, nobody is going to stop you. However, you overstate the case when you call it "older" and the Catholic "newer". They were siblings, born at the same time. And the one grew and took over the Earth, and the other did not have the same growth and career. That difference in relative success may say something about the will of God, or it may say nothing at all about it.
I like the NASV because I understnd from bible scholars that it is the most accurate translation of all of them.
Who forces you to pay taxes? The church? Think again. Secondly, how do you figure that your taxes go to any church?
It isn't the church doing the taxing - it's the government. Write your Congressman. I am against it by the way.
bookmarking
"There were no Catholics until the Council of Nicea in 325 AD."
This is incorrect.
When Eusebius, Bishop of Caesaria, wrote his History of the Church in the 290s AD, and subsequently updated it, he wrote about the Catholic Church, by that name, and he cited documents from much earlier times that, similarly were Catholic or called themselves Catholic.
There has been a Catholic Church, consciously aware of itself as such, since the days of the Apostles, and there have been bishops of said church self-consciously CALLING IT THAT in documents dating from before 100 AD.
So, while it is not historically inaccurate to assert that there were other competing Christian sects from the earliest time, it is simply wrong to argue that there was no Catholic Church before the Council of Nicaea.
Eusebius wrote a comprehensive history of the Catholic Church a quarter of a century before Nicaea, and he traced the lines of various bishops and patriarchs back. The 100's AD is ancient to us, but it was almost within living memory of the men of Eusebius' age. Now, they very well may have argued as to the authenticity of doctrines, but one thing they WEREN'T arguing about (we have libraries of their documents) was whether or not the Catholic Church EXISTED. OF COURSE it existed, with its bishops and priests and deacons and deaconesses, hermits, etc., just as it already did when Paul writes his letter to Timothy explaining the proper procedures for selecting a bishop. Notice that Paul makes no attempt to describe what a bishop IS. Everybody who was going to receive any of his letters already knew THAT. Paul was writing to a Church that was already Catholic. Doctrinally in ferment, perhaps, but already organized on lines familiar to us. Which is why there's no formal Constitution of the Church in the New Testament. Paul tells his readers who should be bishops and priests and deacons and deaconesses. He talks about The Lord's Table without explaining what it is. Etc. He didn't HAVE to, because he was writing to people who already knew what a bishop was, and a priest and deacon, and what the Lord's Table was, etc. Because they were already Catholic.
"Might makes right!"
Isn't that what a belief in God is all about?
There is said to be a quotation from the Gospel of Thomas by St. Hippolytus in a work written between 222 and 235.
According to W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity, the Gospel of Thomas was probably written in Edessa, Syria, and shows strong Jewish influences. "Though it is penetrated by later Gnostic influences, there is a core of early (that is, first-century) material, probably Aramaic in origin." (p. 145)
For more on this text, see these sites:
www.gospelthomas.com
www.earlychristianwritings.com
www.cresourcei.org/thomas.html
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.