Sorry Danny, you'll have to be more specific. I found passages where Jesus prophesied about the Temple's destruction but that doesn't speak to the fact.
It just as well, whether it was spoken before - or written after - "the fact".
"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, know that its desolation has come near."
The bottom line is that when I start hearing the "Christianity was really Protestant/TWI/whatever in nature until Constantine came around and corrupted it," I realize that I will have an uphill battle and one that it's just not worth engaging in.
Yes, such seems an oversimplication.
As Sunesis mentioned earlier, the varieties of Christian movements and ideas during the first two centuries of its history are truly astonishing. And no. They did not all resemble "Protestant/TWI/whatever in nature ".
I concur with you on this.
quote:
Dan, have you ever heard of a document called the Donation of Constantine? Do you know its history at all?
No, but I thank you for introducing me to it and the link, which is very interesting. Thank you.
I was very surprised at how many forgeries there were in the 1st and 2nd centuries.
If someone disagreed with someone, or wanted to make a point, they'd write an "epistle" using an apostle's name and make their argument or apologia. We now know that some of the NT books in Paul's name, were not written by Paul. So you also had all these letters circulating who were not by the "real" apostle.
I was very surprised at how many forgeries there were in the 1st and 2nd centuries.
A casebook example on how writings were edited and "expanded" during that era may be the epistles attributed to St. Ignatius, of which we have the good fortune of possessing both "long" and "short" versions (or "recensions"). They are quite fascinating to compare, to contemplate the theological differences, tendencies and intents behind each version. They may be reviewed here -
I think almost all the New Testament writings underwent a similar process. Few are akin to even a poor photocopy printed out directly from the first or even early second centuries. They were shaped and re-shaped and adopted and adapted according to any given movement, their theology, and their circumstances.
If there was a particular controversy that a church's leaders felt was not sufficiently addressed in letters attributed to their figure, a missing epistle or even a page might miraculously turn up.
Or in the process of writing what we would call "forgeries", a writer or editor may not have considered this activity in such terms.
They may have genuinely believed they were expanding an old writing under the inspiration of the guiding spirit of the original writer, and of his God beside him. They weren't thinking in terms of deceiving or fooling anyone; there were current issues, important to the writer and his particular church, that urgently required divine attention and intervention. Writing a new letter (or expanding an old) under the name and inspiration of a beloved figure was one way toward accomplishing this.
Danny, there are some who question whether Paul was the author of Colossians, as well.
But this brings up a point which, to many of us, is obvious, but should be restated nevertheless:
The Canon of scripture was not fixed until the late 4th Century (the Councils of Hippo and Carthage). When the documents that make up the New Testament were originally transmitted, they were stand-alone documents. Although there are some who might try to allege that Paul personally penned all of the documents attributed to him, its irrefutable that each of these documents stood alone until the Church codified the Canon of the New Testament several centuries later.
(btw, although I agree with the statements that many of the documents could not have been written by the Apostle Paul, that does not mean that I call into doubt the inspiration of those documents that make up the Bible...)
So until there was a canonical index, what did the Church have? They had Sacred Tradition. That Sacred Tradition had a critical role in determining what books were considered canonical, what books would be considered apocryphal, and what books would be considered pseudographic. As one could easily see from such sites as "Early Christian Writings," there were a number of documents which were attributed to any number of apostles; therefore, a claim of apostolic origin could not have been the sole criterion for the decision.
So, in addition to claimed authorship, there must have been something else. I'm sure that Sola Scriptura folks would claim it was divine inspiration of some variety. But they should consider this: the attendees at these conferences were members of the Catholic hierarchy. A post-Constantinian Catholic hierarchy (i.e., a century after Constantine had his opportunity to "subvert" and "paganize" the Christian church--thus forming the "whore of Babylon"). So how could these people have received any authentic inspiration (since they would have already been subverted)?
A much more believable option, in my humble (ahem) opinion, is that the attendees at these councils made a determination based upon Tradition (with a capital "T").
OK, so what?
Consider the remainder of the documents that make up the repository of the Church Fathers. These documents provide a unique and invaluable insight into the mind of those people who made the determination of which components make up the Canon of the New Testament.
Shouldn't those documents be studied to see how and what was actually believed in the early Church (rather than solely relying upon some modern person's opinion on what the Bible says)? Shouldn't we look to those documents to see areas that may not be crystal clear in the canocical writings? Wouldn't it be easier, simpler, and more accurate to see what was believed by the Church Fathers (who either were at the councils or taught those who were in attendence)? Protestant churches claim to try to return to a more "pure" form of Christianity...yet many of them (and I'm not saying anywhere near all of them) completely disregard this treasure we have available to us.
If we want to know what the "first century" church believed, wouldn't it make sense to look toward all of the writings from that period...particularly considering that the Tradition that the attendees at Hippo and Carthage depended upon is contained in the whole repository of writings, not simply those writings deemed canonical?
Danny, I realize that you are well read on the Church Fathers. But I believe firmly that this is something that EVERYBODY should consider in their studies...
Danny, I realize that you are well read on the Church Fathers. But I believe firmly that this is something that EVERYBODY should consider in their studies...
While I digress on some minor points you raised, I wholeheartedly agree with your closing statement. The entire body of religious literature that's come down to us - all of it - is an absolute treasure trove of invaluable information and spiritual insight for us. I wish I had more than one lifetime to absorb it all.
In Iraq, formerly Mesopotamia, with 5000 years of culture and religion. Their bible, the Quran, teaches Islam. Islam means peace in english. There are three major religious sects of Islam. Shia, Sunni, and Muslim. Their prophet, Mohammed.
That being said to give some meaning behind what an Iraqi translator shared with me about his position on Jesus Christ.
"Your Jesus. He was a man who did some good things, but he wasn't a massiah; he wasn't a prophet. You see, he was never crucified. The people back then found someone who looked alot like this Jesus of yours and they tortured him and crucified him and put him in a tomb all the while they had this Jesus of yours hidden somewhere else. Later, when no one was looking, they brought the real Jesus from out of hiding later and claimed he was crucified when he wasn't."
In Iraq, formerly Mesopotamia, with 5000 years of culture and religion. Their bible, the Quran, teaches Islam. Islam means peace in english. There are three major religious sects of Islam. Shia, Sunni, and Muslim. Their prophet, Mohammed.
Time to be pedantic :D-->
Islam is most accurately translated as "submission (to God)", not peace. Salam is "peace".
You are correct about the major sects being Shi'a and Sunni, but Muslim is not a sect, but what one calls a follower of Islam, it means "one who submits (to God)"
"Your Jesus. He was a man who did some good things, but he wasn't a massiah; he wasn't a prophet. You see, he was never crucified. The people back then found someone who looked alot like this Jesus of yours and they tortured him and crucified him and put him in a tomb all the while they had this Jesus of yours hidden somewhere else. Later, when no one was looking, they brought the real Jesus from out of hiding later and claimed he was crucified when he wasn't."
The "Gospel of Barnabas" is an interesting account. Its rather amusing when one googles the document; the only hits that have positive information are Islamic sites; the remainder of the hits rightfully call it a clumsy forgery from the middle ages.
In fact, one could open up the "Epistle of Barnabas" alongside the "Gospel of Barnabas" and clearly, and the difference becomes blatant.
But the one bit of usefulness that comes from this document is another clear example of why it is important to understand, or at least to be somewhat familiar with, the writings of the Church Fathers.
Fair enough. The Church Fathers are the principal leaders of the Christian Church through the 6th Century. (the last "church father" lived in the 8th Century) They are grouped, basically, in three categories: the Apostolic Fathers, the ante-Nicene Fathers and the post-Nicene Fathers. The Apostolic Father period began when the apostles were alive and went through about 200 AD. The ante-Nicene period was from 200 through 325 (the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea). The post-Nicene period was afterwards.
Why should you care about this?
1 Cor 11:2 -- Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances (traditions), as I delivered [them] to you.
1 Thes 2:15 -- Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
2 Thes 3:6 -- Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
Jesus walked among men for a long time. Doesn't the Bible say that all of his words and deeds couldn't be documented. The apostles travelled for years in their ministries, yet not all of those things could be documented. Its a complete violation of common sense to think that all of what Paul, Peter, James, or John taught were contained in those few pages? What about the rest of the apostles?
And remember that there was NO Bible until the 5th Century. Yes, there were individual letters passed around, copied, duplicated, and so on. But what about he oral tradition? (See 1 Thes 2:15, above) The Church Fathers were either taught by the apostles or received this oral tradition through other Fathers. And they wrote letters, instructions, and other documents during their lives.
Look, even if you are a completely "sola scriptura" (the Sciptures, only) Christian, you should still care about their writings. Why? Because through reading them, you can see what they thought about various issues of doctrine, such as baptism, "are the dead alive now," the trinity, Mary, and so on.
Let me give you an example. If you found that the first or second century church practiced water baptism, rather than merely considering spiritual baptism, wouldn't it make you consider the possibility that "the first century church" practiced water baptism? If somebody modern made a statement that the "first century church" didn't really practice water baptism, but you'd seen documents from the first century church, the second century church, and so on, which clearly showed that water baptism was practiced, wouldn't you call into question the veracity of that modern teacher?
Oh, btw, here is the text pertaining to the example I cited:
quote:
Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
(living water here means moving water)
This is from a document dated in AD 70 (i.e., the "first century church")
i think it's an independant yet together type thing
not something where people follow people
words can be said or written
and the choices will be there for yourself
it's not a thing where you have to answer to someone else
but a system of mutual love
the words were brought out by the need for them
meaning there was someone who would hear them then
but for us it's for our learning
if we listen, words will direct us from the living now
don't hesitate to learn the scriptures but see them as they were seen then
to take scriptures and directly apply them to yourself as concrete setinstone commandments limits the ability to see their true intent
so rather then "it is written" meaning
do this and do that
it is written can be seen from outside ourselves as to what it is really saying, what they were talking about and then let these truths develop in our minds and set us off on exploring more of it's meanings
none of it was written directly to us individually yet many things can be learned from them and applied when seen in yourself
The "Gospel of Barnabas" is an interesting account. Its rather amusing when one googles the document; the only hits that have positive information are Islamic sites; the remainder of the hits rightfully call it a clumsy forgery from the middle ages.
Though this writing be late, there are certain elements therein (e.g., that of another person being crucified in Christ's place; in the case of this gospel, Judas being hung on the cross) that reverbates notions shared by earlier, competing Christian/gnostic traditions; or, if one will, traditions that were regarded heretical and opposed by the tradition(s) that ultimately triumphed.
If one has an interest in the obscured traditions of other "lost" Christianities ( as myself, with my undying interest in Marcion and his Christian canon that was compiled and in circulation as early as by the middle of the second century), the writings of the Church Fathers become an invaluable resource, even if one regards their expressions and observations against other Christian movements as understandably biased; (and we might inquire: did the Church Fathers entirely understand the theologies of their opponents? - perhaps no more than their opponents understood them). Nonetheless, certain information preserved by them -even about their opponents - is not available for us elsewhere.
The world has had the good fortune of seeing the light of writings not recognized, preserved or transmitted by "The Tradition" of the Great Church - e.g., the Nag Hammadi Library, a few writings which before this discovery were deemed lost to us forever; and God only knows what further great discoveries will come to light in the work being done by Oxford in using infrared light to read and decipher the underwriting of existing manuscripts that were "whited-out" and re-used over the centuries
I sincerely hope they finally discover sections of Marcionite texts, so I can compare to see how correct or incorrect my attempted reconstructions of Marcion's Bible these past few years (as well as reconstructions done by others), pieced together from citations by the Church Fathers against Marcion, have turned out (lol).
There was also a tradition relating to baptism by the Marcionites, reported by Epiphanius - who exclaimed with patriarchial indignation, "they even permit their women to baptize!"
And yes, they used water as well.
Tradition has its merits, for which again, we should be extremely grateful. But I no more place an unquestioned "blind faith" on "tradition" than I do the notion of an infallible Bible. Even Christ appears to have strongly chastized religious leaders which appealed to "tradition" as their authority. So one should exercise their caution, and use their heads and hearts in approaching any of this material. By all means, even if with a grain of salt -approach it - draw from it, learn from it what one will, and enjoy it.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
14
6
21
6
Popular Days
Sep 13
11
Sep 15
11
Sep 17
11
Sep 18
8
Top Posters In This Topic
TheInvisibleDan 14 posts
Sunesis 6 posts
markomalley 21 posts
irisheyes 6 posts
Popular Days
Sep 13 2005
11 posts
Sep 15 2005
11 posts
Sep 17 2005
11 posts
Sep 18 2005
8 posts
TheInvisibleDan
It just as well, whether it was spoken before - or written after - "the fact".
"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, know that its desolation has come near."
Luke 21:20
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
You're welcome.
Yes, such seems an oversimplication.
As Sunesis mentioned earlier, the varieties of Christian movements and ideas during the first two centuries of its history are truly astonishing. And no. They did not all resemble "Protestant/TWI/whatever in nature ".
I concur with you on this.
No, but I thank you for introducing me to it and the link, which is very interesting. Thank you.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
I was very surprised at how many forgeries there were in the 1st and 2nd centuries.
If someone disagreed with someone, or wanted to make a point, they'd write an "epistle" using an apostle's name and make their argument or apologia. We now know that some of the NT books in Paul's name, were not written by Paul. So you also had all these letters circulating who were not by the "real" apostle.
Fascinating.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
irisheyes
Mark,
I agree with Danny...with the trinity, without the trinity...one pill makes you larger, one pill makes you small...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
... and one pill doesn't do anything at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
A casebook example on how writings were edited and "expanded" during that era may be the epistles attributed to St. Ignatius, of which we have the good fortune of possessing both "long" and "short" versions (or "recensions"). They are quite fascinating to compare, to contemplate the theological differences, tendencies and intents behind each version. They may be reviewed here -
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html
I think almost all the New Testament writings underwent a similar process. Few are akin to even a poor photocopy printed out directly from the first or even early second centuries. They were shaped and re-shaped and adopted and adapted according to any given movement, their theology, and their circumstances.
If there was a particular controversy that a church's leaders felt was not sufficiently addressed in letters attributed to their figure, a missing epistle or even a page might miraculously turn up.
Or in the process of writing what we would call "forgeries", a writer or editor may not have considered this activity in such terms.
They may have genuinely believed they were expanding an old writing under the inspiration of the guiding spirit of the original writer, and of his God beside him. They weren't thinking in terms of deceiving or fooling anyone; there were current issues, important to the writer and his particular church, that urgently required divine attention and intervention. Writing a new letter (or expanding an old) under the name and inspiration of a beloved figure was one way toward accomplishing this.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
lol Danny...
here it's called the edit button
just thought i'd throw that in
i'm not scholarly but...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
lol, CM.
Well, I'm off to my job at the supermarket produce department, where I will separating the "good fruit" and the "rotten" fruit.
God has a wicked sense of humor.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
irisheyes
I guess I'm not included in that "we" because I've just never heard that before. Which books?
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
I can look them up at home. I remember II Thess. is one that wasn't. It was written by someone else to shore up I Thess. (which was written by Paul).
I'll let you know. I think out of his epistles, 5 were written by someone else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
irisheyes
Wow! I didn't expect five.
I would really appreciate you looking them up when you can. And also I'd like to know where the info came from.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
In general, the so-called "Pastoral epistles" of 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, 2nd Thessalonians and Ephesians.
In addition to scattered sections found throughout those letters regarded genuine.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Danny, there are some who question whether Paul was the author of Colossians, as well.
But this brings up a point which, to many of us, is obvious, but should be restated nevertheless:
The Canon of scripture was not fixed until the late 4th Century (the Councils of Hippo and Carthage). When the documents that make up the New Testament were originally transmitted, they were stand-alone documents. Although there are some who might try to allege that Paul personally penned all of the documents attributed to him, its irrefutable that each of these documents stood alone until the Church codified the Canon of the New Testament several centuries later.
(btw, although I agree with the statements that many of the documents could not have been written by the Apostle Paul, that does not mean that I call into doubt the inspiration of those documents that make up the Bible...)
So until there was a canonical index, what did the Church have? They had Sacred Tradition. That Sacred Tradition had a critical role in determining what books were considered canonical, what books would be considered apocryphal, and what books would be considered pseudographic. As one could easily see from such sites as "Early Christian Writings," there were a number of documents which were attributed to any number of apostles; therefore, a claim of apostolic origin could not have been the sole criterion for the decision.
So, in addition to claimed authorship, there must have been something else. I'm sure that Sola Scriptura folks would claim it was divine inspiration of some variety. But they should consider this: the attendees at these conferences were members of the Catholic hierarchy. A post-Constantinian Catholic hierarchy (i.e., a century after Constantine had his opportunity to "subvert" and "paganize" the Christian church--thus forming the "whore of Babylon"). So how could these people have received any authentic inspiration (since they would have already been subverted)?
A much more believable option, in my humble (ahem) opinion, is that the attendees at these councils made a determination based upon Tradition (with a capital "T").
OK, so what?
Consider the remainder of the documents that make up the repository of the Church Fathers. These documents provide a unique and invaluable insight into the mind of those people who made the determination of which components make up the Canon of the New Testament.
Shouldn't those documents be studied to see how and what was actually believed in the early Church (rather than solely relying upon some modern person's opinion on what the Bible says)? Shouldn't we look to those documents to see areas that may not be crystal clear in the canocical writings? Wouldn't it be easier, simpler, and more accurate to see what was believed by the Church Fathers (who either were at the councils or taught those who were in attendence)? Protestant churches claim to try to return to a more "pure" form of Christianity...yet many of them (and I'm not saying anywhere near all of them) completely disregard this treasure we have available to us.
If we want to know what the "first century" church believed, wouldn't it make sense to look toward all of the writings from that period...particularly considering that the Tradition that the attendees at Hippo and Carthage depended upon is contained in the whole repository of writings, not simply those writings deemed canonical?
Danny, I realize that you are well read on the Church Fathers. But I believe firmly that this is something that EVERYBODY should consider in their studies...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
While I digress on some minor points you raised, I wholeheartedly agree with your closing statement. The entire body of religious literature that's come down to us - all of it - is an absolute treasure trove of invaluable information and spiritual insight for us. I wish I had more than one lifetime to absorb it all.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
dear penguin, i just noticed this thread after i posted a link to a fellow's master's thesis. he mentions trinity and speaking in tongues
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brother Speed
In Iraq, formerly Mesopotamia, with 5000 years of culture and religion. Their bible, the Quran, teaches Islam. Islam means peace in english. There are three major religious sects of Islam. Shia, Sunni, and Muslim. Their prophet, Mohammed.
That being said to give some meaning behind what an Iraqi translator shared with me about his position on Jesus Christ.
"Your Jesus. He was a man who did some good things, but he wasn't a massiah; he wasn't a prophet. You see, he was never crucified. The people back then found someone who looked alot like this Jesus of yours and they tortured him and crucified him and put him in a tomb all the while they had this Jesus of yours hidden somewhere else. Later, when no one was looking, they brought the real Jesus from out of hiding later and claimed he was crucified when he wasn't."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Islam is most accurately translated as "submission (to God)", not peace. Salam is "peace".
You are correct about the major sects being Shi'a and Sunni, but Muslim is not a sect, but what one calls a follower of Islam, it means "one who submits (to God)"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Umm, Oaks...
don't you have something better to do today?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
That would most likely refer to The Gospel of Barnabas.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
The "Gospel of Barnabas" is an interesting account. Its rather amusing when one googles the document; the only hits that have positive information are Islamic sites; the remainder of the hits rightfully call it a clumsy forgery from the middle ages.
In fact, one could open up the "Epistle of Barnabas" alongside the "Gospel of Barnabas" and clearly, and the difference becomes blatant.
But the one bit of usefulness that comes from this document is another clear example of why it is important to understand, or at least to be somewhat familiar with, the writings of the Church Fathers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
i've never really understood this phrase
still don't get why it's worded like this
i'm sure it's meant to mean something
about the first century people though
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Fair enough. The Church Fathers are the principal leaders of the Christian Church through the 6th Century. (the last "church father" lived in the 8th Century) They are grouped, basically, in three categories: the Apostolic Fathers, the ante-Nicene Fathers and the post-Nicene Fathers. The Apostolic Father period began when the apostles were alive and went through about 200 AD. The ante-Nicene period was from 200 through 325 (the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea). The post-Nicene period was afterwards.
Why should you care about this?
1 Cor 11:2 -- Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances (traditions), as I delivered [them] to you.
1 Thes 2:15 -- Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
2 Thes 3:6 -- Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
Jesus walked among men for a long time. Doesn't the Bible say that all of his words and deeds couldn't be documented. The apostles travelled for years in their ministries, yet not all of those things could be documented. Its a complete violation of common sense to think that all of what Paul, Peter, James, or John taught were contained in those few pages? What about the rest of the apostles?
And remember that there was NO Bible until the 5th Century. Yes, there were individual letters passed around, copied, duplicated, and so on. But what about he oral tradition? (See 1 Thes 2:15, above) The Church Fathers were either taught by the apostles or received this oral tradition through other Fathers. And they wrote letters, instructions, and other documents during their lives.
Look, even if you are a completely "sola scriptura" (the Sciptures, only) Christian, you should still care about their writings. Why? Because through reading them, you can see what they thought about various issues of doctrine, such as baptism, "are the dead alive now," the trinity, Mary, and so on.
Let me give you an example. If you found that the first or second century church practiced water baptism, rather than merely considering spiritual baptism, wouldn't it make you consider the possibility that "the first century church" practiced water baptism? If somebody modern made a statement that the "first century church" didn't really practice water baptism, but you'd seen documents from the first century church, the second century church, and so on, which clearly showed that water baptism was practiced, wouldn't you call into question the veracity of that modern teacher?
Oh, btw, here is the text pertaining to the example I cited:
(living water here means moving water)This is from a document dated in AD 70 (i.e., the "first century church")
Hope that gives some information.
Catholic Encyclopedia Article
Christian Classics Etheral Library (Calvinist) Collection of Early Church Fathers
Those links provide you some more info.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
thanks for the info Mark
but i can't go with the father concept
regarding these people
brothers yes but not fathers
you and i can write too ya know?
"the principal leaders of the Christian Church"
that is a matter of who a person is following imo
i think it's an independant yet together type thing
not something where people follow people
words can be said or written
and the choices will be there for yourself
it's not a thing where you have to answer to someone else
but a system of mutual love
the words were brought out by the need for them
meaning there was someone who would hear them then
but for us it's for our learning
if we listen, words will direct us from the living now
don't hesitate to learn the scriptures but see them as they were seen then
to take scriptures and directly apply them to yourself as concrete setinstone commandments limits the ability to see their true intent
so rather then "it is written" meaning
do this and do that
it is written can be seen from outside ourselves as to what it is really saying, what they were talking about and then let these truths develop in our minds and set us off on exploring more of it's meanings
none of it was written directly to us individually yet many things can be learned from them and applied when seen in yourself
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Though this writing be late, there are certain elements therein (e.g., that of another person being crucified in Christ's place; in the case of this gospel, Judas being hung on the cross) that reverbates notions shared by earlier, competing Christian/gnostic traditions; or, if one will, traditions that were regarded heretical and opposed by the tradition(s) that ultimately triumphed.
If one has an interest in the obscured traditions of other "lost" Christianities ( as myself, with my undying interest in Marcion and his Christian canon that was compiled and in circulation as early as by the middle of the second century), the writings of the Church Fathers become an invaluable resource, even if one regards their expressions and observations against other Christian movements as understandably biased; (and we might inquire: did the Church Fathers entirely understand the theologies of their opponents? - perhaps no more than their opponents understood them). Nonetheless, certain information preserved by them -even about their opponents - is not available for us elsewhere.
The world has had the good fortune of seeing the light of writings not recognized, preserved or transmitted by "The Tradition" of the Great Church - e.g., the Nag Hammadi Library, a few writings which before this discovery were deemed lost to us forever; and God only knows what further great discoveries will come to light in the work being done by Oxford in using infrared light to read and decipher the underwriting of existing manuscripts that were "whited-out" and re-used over the centuries
I sincerely hope they finally discover sections of Marcionite texts, so I can compare to see how correct or incorrect my attempted reconstructions of Marcion's Bible these past few years (as well as reconstructions done by others), pieced together from citations by the Church Fathers against Marcion, have turned out (lol).
There was also a tradition relating to baptism by the Marcionites, reported by Epiphanius - who exclaimed with patriarchial indignation, "they even permit their women to baptize!"
And yes, they used water as well.
Tradition has its merits, for which again, we should be extremely grateful. But I no more place an unquestioned "blind faith" on "tradition" than I do the notion of an infallible Bible. Even Christ appears to have strongly chastized religious leaders which appealed to "tradition" as their authority. So one should exercise their caution, and use their heads and hearts in approaching any of this material. By all means, even if with a grain of salt -approach it - draw from it, learn from it what one will, and enjoy it.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.