TheInvisibleDan

As I have delved more and more into other Christian circles to hear what they have to share and from listening to Christian radio, it is very apparent that the church "fathers" have had such an impact on Christian doctrine.

I have one simple question? Who the hell are these guys that they are so special that all of Christianity respects their views and interpretations?

So a bunch of church fathers get together at some council and decide what Christians are going to believe as truth and what is heresy? Of course none of the councils conclusions as to what is the truth ever conflicted with their own views, only others whose doctrine was not theirs.

This is pretty typical isn't it? "I have the truth and we have decided that YOU are a heretic, we're not heretics, but YOU are". How convenient.

Who are these people that God gave them some sort of special revelation as to what the proper interpretation of the scriptures are?

My dad laughs at them too. He calls them the "after the fact boys". And rightly so. These church fathers came decades and centuries after the first century Christians had long been dead.

You want to know who the church fathers are? How about Christ first and foremost (I will build my church). Peter, Paul, John, Silas, Timothy, Barnabas....they're the church fathers, not these pre-Roman Catholic people who gave a mandate as to what will be acceptable as the truth.

What a bunch of losers. If they were even born again, at best they were flawed, fallen men, who need to study and seek and pray and meditate for the understanding just like the rest of everyone else. And like everyone else, they were subject to personal bias and the heavy hand of the flesh in their own interpretations.

God shows in the scripture that Paul was a great believer. The scripture tells me Peter was a great believer. But once I get to the end of the book of Revelation and then at the bottom of the page it says, "The End"....that's the truth of the matter. All those who came after that time period are not commented on by God. So to assume they were so spiritually keen is very dangerous.

If God is so mysterious (as they will often say), then what made them think that they're perspective on God was so accurate?

I hear a lot of people on GS saying to look at a man's life, look at his fruit to know whether he is a disciple of Christ.

What fruit do I see from the church fathers? Hmmm, not much except a bunch of mysticism (which is why present day RC's are so ritual and mystical oriented), Aristotelian philosophy......and oh yeah, let's not forget about BURNING OTHER BELIEVERS TO DEATH FOR NOT AGREEING WITH THEIR COUNCIL'S CONCLUSIONS. Who the hell ever gave them the authority to do that? Only themselves.

Nothing but losers, the whole bunch of them.

One need not necessarily agree with the views and actions of the Church Fathers to derive much invaluable information from them concerning the history and development of early Christianity; they also comprise a wealth of information concerning movements and beliefs which eventually became largely superceded. Without their writings we would know very little. In fact, it is my view that through a careful review of scriptural citations throughout their works, can enable one to reconstruct an earlier state of the New Testament books than are not available through surviving NT manuscripts. Critical NT editions such as Aland-Nestle include cross references to "Patristic" citations.

The Church Fathers btw were not all homogenous in their views or their manner of expressions.

Tertullian, for example, has quite a sense of humor when writing against Marcion.

Epiphanius, on the other hand, strikes me a tad mean-spirited and hot-headed.

Whereas the Syrian St. Ephraim has a very eloquent style, even seemingly adjusting his tone accordingly to whom he is addressing.

You failed to mention, btw, which recension of St. Ignatius you quoted - the longer version of his epistles, or the shorter?

If the Church Fathers be "losers" then you are a bigger fool, because you are dependant upon the very version of the NT canon which they (and/or those among

them) had in fact a hand in ultimately producing. The canon of the NT which you read and stake your faith in today comprises the outcome of all their work.

There were no leather-bound "Companion Bibles" at the turn of the second century. It was the Church Fathers and their contemporaries which produced the

canon which came down to us. Consider, for example, St. Jerome.

The NT was not born in a vacuum, or isolated from views and events and even personalities which surrounded its production.

For this the writings of the Church Fathers are essential.

You will not arrive anywhere near "first century" Christianity without them.

Danny

Frankly, my beloved SHAKESPEARE has perhaps the same level of

authoritative support, and that's over a millenium more recent than the

New Testament. Most people never question THAT, and most of those

only question a word or two here or there.

("handsaw", "heron", or "hernshaw"?)

Most people don't but some people do - Shakespearean Authorship Question

Oh goody, do I win a prize?

You scored as Docetism. You are a Docetic. You believe that since matter is evil and corrupt, God (who is pure Spirit) could not possibly have taken human form, and so Jesus only appeared to have a physical body. Condemned by the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

Gnosticism

100%

Docetism

100%

Apollanarian

75%

Monophysitism

67%

Modalism

50%

Chalcedon compliant

42%

Adoptionist

42%

Albigensianism

33%

Monarchianism

25%

Socinianism

17%

Pelagianism

17%

Donatism

17%

Nestorianism

17%

Arianism

0%

Yes, but the kangaroos there speak no English.

Not trying to be conttentious here, but everything I've read always points to Marcion having been born into a 'new-covenant' believing family and his father being a prominent elder or deacon or bishop or whatever they called themselves.

Who knows, sources are always wrong, and we're talking about a guy whose been gone and dead so long ago, no one will ever really know!

So very true when it comes to weighing all information passed down to us.

How much of it is true? Or how much of may be ancient propaganda directed against a most serious rival -

particularly through the weapons of allegory? for example, Tertullian claimed Marcion seduced a "virgin", - the "virgin" = the church;

that Marcion offered n immense monetary gift to the Church at Rome (if such an event actually occurred), with his gift being ultimately rejected along

with his heretical teaching- recalling the episode between Simon Magus and Peter in Acts 8.

And then there are even stranger legends - that Marcion had once been a scribe for John the Elder (the writer of the Fourth Gospel) - who,

as the legend depicts, fired his scribe for having peppered his account with his heresies.

Another allegory? Or was Marcion actually a contemporary of the writer of the fourth Gospel? That would place Marcion somewhere in the vicinity of 100 -110 CE,

if indeed that's when "John" was written.

As for what movement I'm refering to? None.. My point only being that the Torah, which means 'instructions' but translated 'laws', was just that, instructions given from a Father. Just as Proverbs says not to despise the Torah given by thy mother. The Jews took them and lauded them up as laws and made them larger than they were, and they became a stumbling block as Romans clearly shows. Was man made for Torah or Torah made for man? God didn't expect them to be perfect and do them, only to keep them. The word 'keep' in Hebrew meant to guard and protect, not an obedience sort of thing a heart thing. To "break" the Torah was a word that meant to trample them underfoot, not to just disobey, but totally disregard them and dishonor the one who gave the instructions. 1 Timothy 1:8 "But we know that torah is good, if one uses it lawfully...". The law was not evil, it was the Jews that made them the stumbling block they became, and people today continue to follow in their footsteps.

But why is "Timothy" particularly concerned to go so far as to express this utterance to begin with - "but we know that the Law is good...", in the company of other expressions which most coincidently attack points of the debate distinctly associated with second century Marcionism?

It's no fluke that the authorship and authenticity of the "Pastoral Epistles" (1&2 Tim., Titus) have been questioned by scholars for well over the past 200 years.

For many reasons set forth in a many critical NT introductions (Beine-Kummel, and more recently Bart Ehrman). If Paul didn't write the Pastorals, who did, and for what reason?

Does the style of the Pastorals actually reflect that of the earlier epistles attributed to Paul? There the opening prologues to the Pastorals are enough by themselves to raise red flags.

Danny

Marcion eh.... Yeah I remember a bit about him and his hatred for law.. To bad he never understood torah the way it was meant to be understood rather than the stumbling block it became.

Marcion may have understood the law far more acutely than has been assumed.

Harnack thought that Marcion had himself had been raised in Judaism,

and R. Joseph Hoffman in his 1984 thesis brings out further food for thought

along these lines.

Also consider the fact that there have been many movements under the umbrella term

of 'Judaism' (as there are 'Christianity').

I'de be curious as to what movement you suppose may preserve the Torah "the way it was meant to be understood"?

I'm not promoting his group and I don't belong to it but I just received a copy of a new book by Larry Panarello former twi clergy.

One thing I do like about him is he never asks for money.

It's the opposite of what twi is all about, I think they are living in the past.

His book is called "The True Justice of a Just God. It's about healing, restoration and God's justice.

He explains how Jesus Christ came to show how God is light and love in the gospels He also explains what the Daysman is.

I thought it was refreshing and new. Some material never covered in all my years with twi.

Way to go Larry.

Still in bondage to the "Just God", the lower demiurge. Yep, way to go.

Goey wrote:

TWI has always had cliches, overused ( and mostly meaningless) sayings and terms , usually stuff that VPW or some other "great leader" said that was mimicked or parroted by thier psycophants. I still get a slight urge to smack someone if they say "Bless You". In any case, the overuse of the word "tremendous" is just an example of the progression of the "Wayspeak" that began in the 60's.

Those old Wierwillian gangster-isms were really tremendous.

(see?)

Dat's riiight....

Cool. There's also an informative entry at Wikipedia on the subject of these manuscripts. I was wondering if any variants occurring in those texts are also cited in the Nestle-Aland Greek text (yes, 'P-75').

Danny

I'm with lindy on this.. The word spirit has always stood for that which is unseen except for it's effect and thus could define a wide range of things depending on where it is used.

Dan,

I don't view it like VP either, but just curious where you get your idea they are angels from God in the Tanakh? So would you say that Elisha getting a "double portion" was justing getting 2 angels instead of one?! And maybe Moses had 71 angels and 70 were taken from him and dispensed upon the 70 elders? Hmmm.. I just don't quite get that..

Mr.Trust -

I'm at work, but here is an excerpt from an earlier post I did awhile back in a thread on tongues

on this subject of angels and their connection with spiritual gifts/abilities -

“…Since reviewing Otto Everling's thesis "Paulinisch Angelologie und Daemonologie" and E. Earle Evan's provocative article on "Spiritual Gifts in the Pauline Community" (NTS 20) I've come to appreciate that peculiar "angelic" undercurrent flowing throughout the material of those chapters in 1 Corinthians 12 -14, which is also most strikingly apparent in Acts 2. Namely having to do with the role which angels were thought to have played in the function of the "spiritual gifts". Or in brief summation of the theory here - what we call the 9 "gifts" or "manifestations" may also have been actually regarded nine angelic "spirits" placed in service to every Christian, in the sense that "the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets".

Could these servicing "spirits" had been the principalities and powers "stripped" of their authority by Christ on the cross (Col.2:14f) - those comprising the "captives" which Christ led when He ascended? - and among "the gifts" given to men?”

E. Earle Evans article, "Spiritual Gifts in the Pauline Community", is most interesting.

The late Earnest Martin (of ASK publications) also did a couple of studies devoted to

the role angels played with delivering and enacting the law of Moses.

So if we are born spirit beings, then how do you account for believers in the OT who had the spirit of God taken away? If the spirit was taken away, then they had no spirit. If we are already spirit beings, then what do we receive from God in salvation?

If I may offer my view here: the spirit(s) or spirit beings upon Old Testament prophets (or believers) were angels from Yahweh.

These comprised a class of angels - "ministering spirits" (cf. Hebrews ch. 1&2) which enabled their hosts various revelations and powers.

Speaking of Baldwin's acting, I think Harrison Ford played the Jack Ryan character a lot better than Baldwin did. Harrison gave him more depth, whereas Baldwin's portrayal was too, ... ohh what's the word, ... shallow.

... a lot like the actor himself. <_<

But hey, that's my Siskel & Ebert take on him. :B) YMMV.

I thought Baldwin's best work was hosting SNL in the early 90s. The show that featured Paul McCartney as the music guest.

I wish Baldwin had stuck to comedy.

It seems surrealistic to be waging bloody combat against one another over the mindless shenigans of a mediocre, hollywood B actor.

Okay, this has once and for all confirmed the astounding revelation to me -exceedingly above and beyond all that past 'Marxist Minstrel' propaganda that was drummed into us: The Beatles were of God.

I still have an old Casiotone which can make those same drum noises. I used to feed it through an old digital delay unit, which provided some interesting f/x.

My cheap Casiotone never sounded better.

Ah, hints of Rush's "2112" - guitars have been banned in this strange new world.

The folks on the stage are certainly waxing old.

Where the hell are the kids?

Shouldn't these fogies shuffle aside, and let the younger generation to get up there and take their creative turn in the spotlight?

They must be garrisoned in the basement, having been sentenced to only making macaroni pictures.

If the fear didn't kill me, the boredom would've.

It was time for something different.

Jesus wasn't born in this world at all. At least half the earliest Christians believed that He beamed down to the planet earth, not unlike our modern day myth of Captain Kirk

and his landing crew. Though it's too bad Jesus was wearing a red shirt.

Non sequitur, in that the lives of church leadership *can* affect the way followers think even if it doesn't affect official doctrine.

In traditional churches, the life of leadership has little to nothing to do with doctrine.

I don't quite agree. How "leadership" of even the traditional churches conduct themselves can effect a positive or negative impact upon their congregation.

Church scandals have not been limited to cults.

Danny

It is a fascinating insight, though I am just as interested in seeing the actual documentation behind such a custom.

He will return in the clouds, a flaming Craig of fire.

- 2nd Thessbalonians 2:4

Yeah, I can picture John and Pat cruising down the road in their 70s, guzzler "Pimpmobile",

John wearing many rings, dark glasses, velvet cowboy hat and a yellow fur coat, Pat endued as a frilly-girdled saloon

madam, cigarette dangling out of her mouth, accompanied by a funky wah-wah soundtrack.

Slate that scene for our onging USA channel, made-for-TV movie.

his last thoughts were probably how psycho geer would preserve his memory

plunk

that was the glass eye falling to the floor

Accompanied by the utterance...

"Rosebud...."

I once heard some classical music that had harp playing that stood out to me .... could be that I'm not used to hearing it in classical music. Are there any particular pieces that feature harps? I have no idea what it was and haven't been able to find anything that comes close to it in my searches since hearing it.

Belle

I can recommend a couple of my favorites:

Claude Debussy, Danses Sacree et Profane, for Chromatic Harp and String Orch.,

of which you can hear some samples on a compilation available at Amazon.

At least that's the version I still have on vinyl.

The other piece is far less known, by the American composer Virgil Thomson -

Autumn ( Concertino for Harp, Strings & Percussion) .

The version I have is an out-of-print EMI cd from 1986, the Los Angeles Chamber

Orchestra conducted by Neville Marriner (Anne Stockton, harp).

This disc also presents Thomson's other signature Americana pieces "The Plow that Broke the Plains" ( music also featured

in the soundtrack of that 80s scary nuke movie, "The Day After") and "The River", but there's little harp in those.

Danny

A couple years after I left the grand old cult, I took a razor knife to my old, cheap "Cambridge" wide margin Bible - which was beginning to fall apart anyways - and separated

the section of the 4 Gospels (they weren't marked up too much anyways), and glued a new cover to it. So becoming my "Gospel Study Bible", into which margins I glued typewritten notes I had taken from Matthew Black's Aramaic reconstructions.

Then I took an old Gideon NT that I paid a dollar for at a used bookstore, and with a bottle of "white-out" retitled the spine "THEORIES OF INTERPOLATION", throughout which text I applied color pencils around various sections corresponding to the different theories of critical scholars I had reviewed -with annotations providing details as to how certain sections might have been originally arranged - and what material comprised interpolations added later.

It was fun. Things I used to do before the "computer age"...

When I read the Bible I've asked myself that kind of question so many times - am I understanding what I read based on what I expect or want it to say, or am I allowing it to speak for itself?

Easter, and the resurrection really are where the rubber meets the road in this line of thinking. Christ being "raised from the dead" after 3 days was an event completely outside human involvment. No one expected it or was waiting anxiously at the gravesite to see Jesus on that morning. Mary was there mourning His passing. When she ran back to tell others what she'd seen she said "I've seen the Lord!" I can imagine her feelings and the reactions of the others that heard that.

To believe it or not to believe it? Those who did believed it because they saw Him finally. Later and now - others believe this happened too, not having seen Him face to face.

Yet when a person chooses to look at that information they are putting themselves in the same place that those people were. Everything says He's dead, and now we might also think, if He ever lived at all.

Logic says He can't be. If we're to proceed forward at all He has to be alive, He has to show Himself to those who are there whether they're looking for a dead man or a living one. Either He is or He isn't - at that point it becomes something that my expectation can't produce - God and Christ have to do their part. They have to speak for themselves.

I would post this in the Easter "He Is Risen!" thread, but it was Sock's post and most particularly the event of Jesus' resurrection being "where the rubber hits the road" that compels me to pose this hypothetical question:

-Hypothetically - to everyone here (pretend we're in an alternate universe) -

Had Jesus' resurrection not been part of the Gospel-

would anyone here had still followed and lived their lives according to his teachings (e.g. "Sermon on the Mount")?

Remove Jesus' resurrection from the scenario -would his sayings and teachings elsewhere be rendered ineffective, powerless and unworthy of bothering oneself with?

I think it interesting that there were a few early Christian Gospels which comprised exclusively of his sayings, with the complete absence of any narrative depicting Jesus' story or events.

Yes, what better way to express gratitude for the death and rising of a supposed Jewish Messiah

-than by feasting upon the flesh of roasted pig.

When Jesus entered into Capernaum, a certain centurion (whose slave was dear to him) saw him, and entreated him: ‘Lord, my slave lies at home, motionless and on the verge of death.’ And Jesus said ‘I will come and heal him.’

But the Centurion answered, ‘Lord, I am unworthy of you entering beneath my roof; only utter the command, and my boy will be healed.’ When Jesus heard this, he marvelled..” Truly I say to you - not in Israel have I encountered such trust!” And Jesus said to the centurion: ‘Go! As you have trusted, such for you will be done!’ And his [sex] slave was healed that very hour.’

John the Baptist was outraged! When he heard this report in prison, he dispatched two of his disciples to question him: “Are you the one expected to come - or shall we expect another?”

-Reconstruction, derived from Q, Marcion, Matt.8:5-13/Luke 7:2; Acts of Pilate ch.8).