Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So even if Jews and Muslims deny the divinity of Christ or His role as Savior, that's not enough for Catholics to exclude them from "the church"? Again, I ask you if you see the terms, "the Church," "the body of Christ" and "Christianity" as being synonomous.
The church and body of Christ mercy has no limits. No point in punishing anyone who through not fault of his or her own never knew Jesus.
I suggest you read the catechism of the CC. What the preacher says on the Sunday service is not accurate.
The church and body of Christ mercy has no limits. No point in punishing anyone who through not fault of his or her own never knew Jesus.
I suggest you read the catechism of the CC. What the preacher says on the Sunday service is not accurate.
True but the RCC wasn't always so doctrinally merciful towards Protestants, Jews and Muslims. There is a very big difference between the RCC stance right now vs their stance from 1400 - 1962. Vatican II marks an absolutely massive change on who the RCC considered saved and who they considered damned for all eternity.
I think Vatican II was the single most important and most useful council in RCC history. All the way back to Nicaea I, most councils were about damning folks to hell for failing to accept rigid doctrinal orthodoxy. Vatican II was about mercy, open-mindedness, common sense, acceptance, etc. Very good stuff. Vatican II did come a couple of hundred years later than it should have, but better late than never. It's a big change. You shouldn't be so surprised that a lot of folks are still pretty skeptical.
June 7th, I don't think anything on this thread is directed at an individual or a denomination. It is a discussion about how the "early" church, however one wishes to define that, viewed its leaders.
If we are unable to discuss the writings of the early church and reach individual conclusions about them, then just about all the threads in religion and spirituality would need to be shut down.
I've learned a lot from the postings on this particular thread and would be sadly disappointed to see it closed.
CLARIFICATION:
Good morning and happy weekend everyone!
Wardendresdan and everyone else:
This thread if fine! My mod cut was to alert members that a new Sticky has been put up at the top of the forum. Miss Blue and I have put this same mod cut in every thread on the forum. The mod cut wasn't singling out this thread in particular at all; it was a "general announcement" in order to inform members about the new Sticky.
Members are absolutely able to discuss the writings of the early church! This thread is a perfect example of the kinds of threads one would expect and hope to find on this particular subforum. So I think perhaps you may have misinterpreted the purpose of the mod cut.
What the Sticky is saying is that it's absolutely fine, and certainly encouraged to discuss any topics pertaining to and relative to Christianity, and that it is absolutely fine to disagree with another member's views. It's what is encouraged and what is at the heart of any good discussion or debate. What the Sticky is saying is that it is not acceptable to personally attack another member for their interpretation, understanding, or view relative to who they are as a Christian in disagreeing with them. THAT is what the Sticky addresses.
The Sticky was created, in large part, due to input from members themselves who post in this particular forum. As members have no doubt noticed, not everyone who is a Christian necessarily agrees with someone else who identifies themselves as a Christian. The issue being addressed in the Sticky is that it's perfectly fine to disagree with another member, and to tell them why. --But what is not acceptable is toattack that individual personally for their view or opinion regarding some aspect of Christianity. All Christians who post on this forum are entitled to their opinions, views, and beliefs regarding aspects of Christianity. But if you disagree with another member, tell them why you disagree with what it is that they are saying that you disagree with, but do not attack the member him/herself because their views differ from yours. As the TOS specifies, discuss, debate various topics and ideas without attacking the other person.
The members who post on this forum, and identify themselves as being a Christian, might not necessarily have the same views or opinions regarding some aspect of Christianity. Not everyone is of the same denomination, not everyone agrees with certain doctrines or the various aspects of the Christian faith. That is to be expected, and in debating and/or discussing the various topics of an OP, address and disagree with another member without going after them personally due to the fact that how they view the OP doesn't line up with yours. No one who is a Christian posting on this forum wants to be told that they are not a Christian because they are disagreed with. --Yet all too often, that is what takes place on the forum. Members go after, and personally attack other members in such a way that causes June, in moderating a thread, to go "YIKES!" in the attacking that she sees going on. That is what the Sticky addresses.
So in summation, yes: it's perfectly fine to disagree with another member's interpretation of some aspect of Christianity. But in doing so, DO NOT attack that member personally for their views as a Christian, because their views aren't the same as yours.
Civility needs to be maintained on this forum despite the fact that not all Christians posting here agree with one another.
True but the RCC wasn't always so doctrinally merciful towards Protestants, Jews and Muslims. There is a very big difference between the RCC stance right now vs their stance from 1400 - 1962. Vatican II marks an absolutely massive change on who the RCC considered saved and who they considered damned for all eternity.
I think Vatican II was the single most important and most useful council in RCC history. All the way back to Nicaea I, most councils were about damning folks to hell for failing to accept rigid doctrinal orthodoxy. Vatican II was about mercy, open-mindedness, common sense, acceptance, etc. Very good stuff. Vatican II did come a couple of hundred years later than it should have, but better late than never. It's a big change. You shouldn't be so surprised that a lot of folks are still pretty skeptical.
Sure, Catholicism was once in the Dark Ages. What is really amazing is to see other new religions going through their own Dark Age. I suppose it takes time to mature.
GodofThunder9010 said in post # 52 “True but the RCC wasn't always so doctrinally merciful towards Protestants, Jews and Muslims. There is a very big difference between the RCC stance right now vs their stance from 1400 - 1962. Vatican II marks an absolutely massive change on who the RCC considered saved and who they considered damned for all eternity. I think Vatican II was the single most important and most useful council in RCC history. All the way back to Nicaea I, most councils were about damning folks to hell for failing to accept rigid doctrinal orthodoxy. Vatican II was about mercy, open-mindedness, common sense, acceptance, etc. Very good stuff. Vatican II did come a couple of hundred years later than it should have, but better late than never. It's a big change. You shouldn't be so surprised that a lot of folks are still pretty skeptical. “
Julian658 responded in post # 54 “Sure, Catholicism was once in the Dark Ages. What is really amazing is to see other new religions going through their own Dark Age. I suppose it takes time to mature“
I like the juxtaposition of these two principles, Though GodofThunder9010 correctly pointed out that the RCC was not always a merciful and good organisation in specific points of doctrine and practice, Julian658s point that though the Roman Movement was indeed in, and part of “the Dark Ages” but is still changing and attempting to improve, other movements are also in a similar, slow, and difficult process of evolution in their doctrines and practices. This "evolution" from one type of organisation with certain characteristics into another organisation having different characteristics is part of the point I was trying to make that καθολικοσ in 100 a.d. was not referring to the Roman καθολικοσ of say, 500 or 600 a.d. These organizations "evolve" and there are certain pressures, within and without, that causes certain evolutions of doctrine and practice.
For example, the various social pressures involving sexual orientation and its’ associated issues and the various reactions to these issues by certain religious movement provide us with examples of evolving doctrine and practices within some movements. (I am not trying to say what reactions are “right” or “wrong”, but simply that some churches and religious movements are adopting stances to these issues which they did not formerly have…they are “evolving” and “changing” in certain ways….) Julian658’s point regarding the concept to taking time to “mature” doctrinally is interesting to consider.
Protestants and Restorationists and other Christian religionists are allowed the great advantage of hind-sight in putting together their base doctrines whereas those who have had to go through the very difficult and error prone process of actually going through the long process or working out theological maturation did (and are doing) a very, very, difficult thing.
It feels as though the thread had become a systematic expose' of the deficiencies of Roman – type Christian theology (Perhaps some of it was to counter historically inaccurate Catholic claims). Still there are some important HISTORICAL (if not religious) advantages of a study of “OLD” systems of Christian theology (i.e. The Coptic or Eastern orthodox; the Roman movement; or ANY of the older Judeo-christian systems of belief).
After the Apostles and Prophets died, certain amounts of theological confusion regarding details of the Christian religion and it’s unanswered details remained. What was one to teach in the face of a previously undescribed detail of doctrine? For example, Origen reminds us that in his day, the Christians did know whether God the Father had a body or not and so it had not been decided what they were to teach in this regard.
The various congregations were left to decide many such questions for themselves and as the different groups developed, their different answers to such questions with their differing theologies led to different Christian Movement developing different answers to the same theological questions just as new Movements nowadays have their own theologies and systematization of beliefs.
There was a time in the “earliest periods” of the Christian religious movement when a “proto-roman Catholicism” was also a very “young” Christian interpretation undergoing this same process of development as some protestants are now undergoing.
Many protestant Christian movements are still (historically) “young” Christian interpretational theories (i.e. in a relatively “young” stage of "maturation") compared to older theologies such as the Roman-type theology and the very old Coptic theologies and other equally old Christian movements.
The “older” Christian movements have had generations to develop and mature. They have had time to “think about” and work through and develop many doctrines which the “younger” interpretations have not yet worked out nor come to a consensus on what they are going to believe and teach as truth.
Another advantage of “older” theologies is that although older belief systems (such as the romans or the Coptic or the remnants of any of the earliest Christian congregations) may not possess all of the original doctrines and traditions, still, a few of their traditions and doctrines were created inside the milieu and worldview of the earlier centuries and thus many of their traditions seem to retain distinct remnants of many of the earliest Christian traditions.
In contrast, the Christian movements and their more modern interpretations that were developed in the more modern times were developed outside of that same milieu and worldview of the earlier centuries and some of them may not have ANY remnant of specific yet profoundly important early Judeo-Christian doctrines and early Judao-Christian traditions that formed much of the conceptual basis of early and authentic Judeo-Christian religion. For example, though the Catholic version of Purgatory as a “world of spirits” is not the same as the early Judeo-Christian textual version, still, they have a version that is a wonderful base doctrine while many of the younger Christian Movements seen among the several “protestant” Movements lack even a model for the base doctrine.
Some of the younger, or more “modern” Christian movement have poorer more nebulous concepts concerning early doctrines, and often, they simply lack certain early doctrines altogether. To the degree that they lack the logical framework and concepts that underlie the earliest and most authentic Judeo-Christian worldview, they are left with less logical, less fair, less authentic versions of the ancient Judeo-Christianity. For these ”younger” Christian movement, some of these early orthodox doctrines have become “heterodox” or frankly “heretical”. Thus, some of the early “truths” have become “error” and “error” has become “truth” (in certain Christian religious system of belief).
For me, this is part of the great value of a study of the early Christian religions such as the Coptic movement and Roman movement and other older, earlier versions of Judeo-Christianity. At least they have remnants of certain doctrines; debris from an earlier theology (as well as some of the very solid doctrines as well). It does not bother me at all that the RCC is evolving away from certain errors and toward certain reforms. In fact, I honor them for any such efforts they make to correct and improve their theological stance.
GodofThunder9010 said in post # 52 “True but the RCC wasn't always so doctrinally merciful towards Protestants, Jews and Muslims. There is a very big difference between the RCC stance right now vs their stance from 1400 - 1962. Vatican II marks an absolutely massive change on who the RCC considered saved and who they considered damned for all eternity. I think Vatican II was the single most important and most useful council in RCC history. All the way back to Nicaea I, most councils were about damning folks to hell for failing to accept rigid doctrinal orthodoxy. Vatican II was about mercy, open-mindedness, common sense, acceptance, etc. Very good stuff. Vatican II did come a couple of hundred years later than it should have, but better late than never. It's a big change. You shouldn't be so surprised that a lot of folks are still pretty skeptical. “
Julian658 responded in post # 54 “Sure, Catholicism was once in the Dark Ages. What is really amazing is to see other new religions going through their own Dark Age. I suppose it takes time to mature“
I like the juxtaposition of these two principles, Though GodofThunder9010 correctly pointed out that the RCC was not always a merciful and good organisation in specific points of doctrine and practice, Julian658s point that though the Roman Movement was indeed in, and part of “the Dark Ages” but is still changing and attempting to improve, other movements are also in a similar, slow, and difficult process of evolution in their doctrines and practices. This "evolution" from one type of organisation with certain characteristics into another organisation having different characteristics is part of the point I was trying to make that καθολικοσ in 100 a.d. was not referring to the Roman καθολικοσ of say, 500 or 600 a.d. These organizations "evolve" and there are certain pressures, within and without, that causes certain evolutions of doctrine and practice.
For example, the various social pressures involving sexual orientation and its’ associated issues and the various reactions to these issues by certain religious movement provide us with examples of evolving doctrine and practices within some movements. (I am not trying to say what reactions are “right” or “wrong”, but simply that some churches and religious movements are adopting stances to these issues which they did not formerly have…they are “evolving” and “changing” in certain ways….) Julian658’s point regarding the concept to taking time to “mature” doctrinally is interesting to consider.
Protestants and Restorationists and other Christian religionists are allowed the great advantage of hind-sight in putting together their base doctrines whereas those who have had to go through the very difficult and error prone process of actually going through the long process or working out theological maturation did (and are doing) a very, very, difficult thing.
It feels as though the thread had become a systematic expose' of the deficiencies of Roman – type Christian theology (Perhaps some of it was to counter historically inaccurate Catholic claims). Still there are some important HISTORICAL (if not religious) advantages of a study of “OLD” systems of Christian theology (i.e. The Coptic or Eastern orthodox; the Roman movement; or ANY of the older Judeo-christian systems of belief).
After the Apostles and Prophets died, certain amounts of theological confusion regarding details of the Christian religion and it’s unanswered details remained. What was one to teach in the face of a previously undescribed detail of doctrine? For example, Origen reminds us that in his day, the Christians did know whether God the Father had a body or not and so it had not been decided what they were to teach in this regard.
The various congregations were left to decide many such questions for themselves and as the different groups developed, their different answers to such questions with their differing theologies led to different Christian Movement developing different answers to the same theological questions just as new Movements nowadays have their own theologies and systematization of beliefs.
There was a time in the “earliest periods” of the Christian religious movement when a “proto-roman Catholicism” was also a very “young” Christian interpretation undergoing this same process of development as some protestants are now undergoing.
Many protestant Christian movements are still (historically) “young” Christian interpretational theories (i.e. in a relatively “young” stage of "maturation") compared to older theologies such as the Roman-type theology and the very old Coptic theologies and other equally old Christian movements.
The “older” Christian movements have had generations to develop and mature. They have had time to “think about” and work through and develop many doctrines which the “younger” interpretations have not yet worked out nor come to a consensus on what they are going to believe and teach as truth.
Another advantage of “older” theologies is that although older belief systems (such as the romans or the Coptic or the remnants of any of the earliest Christian congregations) may not possess all of the original doctrines and traditions, still, a few of their traditions and doctrines were created inside the milieu and worldview of the earlier centuries and thus many of their traditions seem to retain distinct remnants of many of the earliest Christian traditions.
In contrast, the Christian movements and their more modern interpretations that were developed in the more modern times were developed outside of that same milieu and worldview of the earlier centuries and some of them may not have ANY remnant of specific yet profoundly important early Judeo-Christian doctrines and early Judao-Christian traditions that formed much of the conceptual basis of early and authentic Judeo-Christian religion. For example, though the Catholic version of Purgatory as a “world of spirits” is not the same as the early Judeo-Christian textual version, still, they have a version that is a wonderful base doctrine while many of the younger Christian Movements seen among the several “protestant” Movements lack even a model for the base doctrine.
Some of the younger, or more “modern” Christian movement have poorer more nebulous concepts concerning early doctrines, and often, they simply lack certain early doctrines altogether. To the degree that they lack the logical framework and concepts that underlie the earliest and most authentic Judeo-Christian worldview, they are left with less logical, less fair, less authentic versions of the ancient Judeo-Christianity. For these ”younger” Christian movement, some of these early orthodox doctrines have become “heterodox” or frankly “heretical”. Thus, some of the early “truths” have become “error” and “error” has become “truth” (in certain Christian religious system of belief).
For me, this is part of the great value of a study of the early Christian religions such as the Coptic movement and Roman movement and other older, earlier versions of Judeo-Christianity. At least they have remnants of certain doctrines; debris from an earlier theology (as well as some of the very solid doctrines as well). It does not bother me at all that the RCC is evolving away from certain errors and toward certain reforms. In fact, I honor them for any such efforts they make to correct and improve their theological stance.
clearly
σιτζτωω
Thanks for such an elegant post---------I learned a few things! Furthermore, I freely admit that the Catholic Church was plagued with ancient rites and medieval practices. But, what else can one expect given the time period in history.
I agree with everything you have posted above. We also forget how disjointed Christianity must have been at the early onset with no clear direction other than the words of Jesus and the Apostles which were mostly available by word of mouth. Even at the time of the Nicean Council some factions were not certain about the divinity of Jesus. The Nicene Creed which is said in every single mass in the world was instrumental in providing guidance to the faithful. Up until that point there was a lot of discrepancy and part of the function of the CC was to create direction and unity.
I agree with you that when the word Catholic was used in the early 2nd century the CC did not have a fully established hierarchy. In fact, most Christians in the first century were Jews worshiping in Synagogues.
Nevertheless, many Christian writings in the second century put emphasis on the Eucharist and that is the centerpiece of every mass. They also mention the concept of saints and apostolic succession. These things are NOT late inventions of the Catholic church. These customs go all the way back to the onset of Christianity.
Building Saint Peters over the tomb of peter is NOT a new invention. The folks of that era had a concept of connecting the Apostolic succession to Peter. Who knows maybe folks were rewriting history in ancient times, but I think it is doubtful.
Lastly, the dogma of the Church (whether right or wrong) was developed with some logic into it.
Thanks julian658.
I have another comment but it will have to wait until I return from hiking in the mountains today to see the fall colors. See you julian... clear
Thanks julian658.
I have another comment but it will have to wait until I return from hiking in the mountains today to see the fall colors. See you julian... clear
1)REGARDING THE TENDENCY TO APOSTATIZE FROM ORIGINAL RELIGION
I once saw an Opening post ask regarding the Jew’s motives in “turn[ing] away” from the gospel. I felt that this discussion had far reaching implications since the same mechanisms that caused the Jews to “turn away” from truth may then apply to ALL individuals who “turn away” from principles God reveals for mankind to follow. Another Christian poster immediately offered the insightful question : “Do you really think we [Christians] do any better?”
Honest discussions regarding this principle IS an appropriate and profound subject if Christianities are to ever gain insight into why Christians also “turn away” from truth, since, only a small portion of the many conflicting Christian theories on a specific doctrine CAN be correct and the rest must represent error.
Yet Christianities continue to innovate and develop new and different theological theories and move away (or “turn away”) from the more ancient christian traditions. It is as though Christianity has not avoided making the same mistakes as the Jews (in terms of abandoning and innovating away from early, original, revealed religion.)
Christians rarely flirt with this admission (which is so obvious to other religions as they correctly criticize Christians for having so many conflicting theories), yet occasionally we’ll have the tacit admission that Christians are “not above guessing at those traditions, adding to them, misunderstanding them, or even altering them.” As one poster described our shared tendency to apostatize.
Such words remind me of Pseudo-Hecateus when he says “We throngs of men go astray in our hearts when, to gain solace from misery, we set up as statues of gods figures worked from wood, or images of copper, gold or ivory. We imagine we are religious when we enjoin in their honor sacrifices and evil festivals. (#2 Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 5.113)
This principle that man innovates and then adopts changed religion has ALWAYS been true whether speaking of Jews or Christians. Prophets reveal authentic religion. Men then go astray. Other prophets attempt to restore authentic religion to mankind, which correction men then apostatize from, which other prophets attempt to restore, ad nauseum.
Perhaps this is one of the great lessons that God seems to be trying to teach mankind from the beginning and Christians seem to be no more immune to this weakness than were the Jews. ALL mankind tend to apostatize to some extent. We innovate, we imagine, we theorize. And as we do, we get certain things wrong. A survey of the early Judao-Christian texts reveals this pattern as clearly as the later sacred texts do.
2) APOSTASY AMONG THE JEWS
For example, Moses understood this tendency for constant innovation and apostasy when he said “...for what I command them will not be to their liking, .... I declare to you that they will abandon me and choose to follow the idols of the gentiles and their abominations and their filthy deeds, and they will worship the false gods, which will become a trap and snare, and they will violate every sacred assembly and covenant Sabbath the very ones I am commanding them today to observe. (THE WORDS OF MOSES 1Q22 Col. 1:6-9)
The text described that “...the boundary-shifters appeared and led Israel astray and the land was devastated, for they had spoken rebellion against the commandments of God through Moses and also through the anointed of the spirit; and they prophesied falsehood to turn Israel from following God “. (The Damascus Document 4Q)
“all the boundary shifters and all of it will be done in the age of evil...and they did not obey the voice of Moses ...they went about spreading lies about His laws and from God’s covenant they strayed... “ (THE DAMASCUS DOCUMENT – Geniza A+B 4Q266)
“In the time of destruction of the land the boundary-shifters appeared and led Israel astray…for they had spoken rebellion against the commandments of God…“ (The Damascus Document 4Q)
Indeed the manner of corruption of early authentic religion was NOT through refusal of the Pagans to accept authentic religion, but rather it was a contamination of authentic prophetic religion by counterfeit innovations; a warping of religion, not by the irreligious, but by the religious themselves. The boundaries of authentic religion have always tended to “shift”.
For example, When Levi prophesies to his son’s that Israel will someday lose the rights associated with authentic religion, he reaffirms that it was partly because of contamination of authentic religion with counterfeit commandments and having pride in their claim to authority :
“You will bring down a curse on our nation, because you want to destroy the light of the Law which was granted to you for the enlightenment of every man, teaching commandments which are opposed to God’s just ordinances. .... You will be inflated with pride over your priesthood, exalting yourselves not merely by human standards but contrary to the commands of God”. (Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs- Levi 14:1-8)
It is clear that it was not merely commandments and doctrines that were corrupted, but the authentic ordinances were corrupted as well.
‘And I shall send to them witnesses so that I might witness to them, but they will not hear. And they will even kill the witnesses. And they will persecute those who search out the Law, and they will neglect everything and begin to do evil in my sight. And I shall hide my face from them, and I shall give them over to the power of the nations to be captive, and for plunder, and to be devoured. And I shall remove them from the midst of the land, and I shall scatter them among the nations. And they will forget all of my laws and all of my commandments and all of my judgments, and they will err concerning new moons, Sabbaths, festivals, jubilees, and ordinances.” Jubilees (the book of division) 1:12-14;
New testament Barnabas reminds the christians of this same warning and it’s fulfillment among the Jews : “Now concerning the water, it is written with reference to Israel that they would never accept the baptism that brings forgiveness of sins, but would create a substitute for themselves.” (Barnabas 11:1)
Thus the book of Jubilees reminds us : “And this testimony will be heard as a testimony against them, for they will forget all of my commandments, everything which I shall command them, and they will walk after the gentiles and after their defilement and shame. And they will serve their gods, …. because they have forsaken my ordinances and my commandments and the feasts of my covenant and my Sabbaths and my sacred place, which I sanctified for myself among them.“ (Jubilees (the book of division) 1:9-10)
THE CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE TO RETAIN AUTHENTIC RELIGION WAS THE LOSS OF THE MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF AUTHENTIC RELIGION AMONG THE JEWS
28 “Hear these words, O Israel. … you and your fathers committed iniquity and did not keep the ways which the Most High commanded you. 32 And because he is a righteous judge, in due time he took from you what he had given.“ Fourth Book of Ezra 14:28-32;
The Prophet Ezra is not merely referring to the land of Israel, but to the very loss of the Prophetic gift of Revelation which kept authentic religion on course. Prophetic revelation was so central to authentic religion that Justin martyr, reminds the Jew Trypho that prophetic religion was the key witnesses to the authenticity of the early Christian religion and it’s loss among the Jews and the appearance of Revelation and prophets among the Christians was a sign of Gods transfer of favor to the Christians.
Justin tells the Jew Trypo : “One may see among us [Christians] men and women who have received the gift of the Spirit of God...there were no longer to be prophets in your [Jewish] race as in the past...For after him [Jesus] absolutely no prophet has come among you... We have still among us, even until now, prophetic gifts, which should make you understand that which your race formerly possessed has been transferred to us. “ (Dialogue with Trypho, lxxxiii)
However, once the Christians received the gift of authentic prophetic religion, though they disdained the Jews for apostasy from the earliest religion, the Christians seemed no better at retaining authentic religion than the Jews were. The warnings given to the Jews anciently are no different in essentials than the warnings repeated to the Christians should Christianity turns too far from the path or should they not accept corrections back to correct principles.
3) APOSTASY AMONG THE CHRISTIANS
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.(gal 1:6-7)
Individuals quote (and often mis-use) Gal 1:6 as only regarding latter day apostasy when it applied to the Galations themselves and apostasy among the earliest Christians themselves. However, the same pattern of innovation and apostasy that became prominent among the Jews became a pattern within Christianity.
For example : Clement discusses this same unrelenting tendency to conflict, schism and apostasy among the earliest Christians in the very early text of 1st Clement : “Why is there strife and angry outbursts and dissension and schisms and conflict among you? Do we not have one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace which was poured out upon us? And is there not one calling in Christ? Why do we tear and rip apart the members of Christ, and rebel against our own body, and reach such a level of insanity that we forget that we are members of one another? ...Your schism has perverted many; it has brought many to despair, plunged many into doubt, and caused all of us to sorrow. And yet your rebellion still continues!” (1st Clement 46:5-9)
Such schisms were not simply the hypocrites who did not live the law, but they often resulted from Christians who think they know the “real” Christianity and wanted to teach their interpretations to others. Among these were ones described as “Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.“ (1 Tim 1:6-7) Their motives were NOT necessarily to HARM the Christian religion, but instead They are trying to HELP God by offering their interpretations of religion.
This apostasy is not simply a phenomenon of our time, but it happened in the early congregations and from the earliest time Christians were given the gospel and, it is NOT the anti-Christians in the main, who changed Christianity from without, but it is the Christian disciples themselves who are changing doctrines from within the christian movement itself as the early text from the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah reminds us :
“And afterwards, at his approach, his disciples will abandon the teaching of the twelve apostles, and their faith, and their love, and their purity. And there will be much contention at his coming and at his approach. And in those days (there will be) many who will love office, although lacking wisdom. And there will be many wicked elders and shepherds who wrong their sheep, (and they will be rapacious because they do not have holy shepherds). And many will exchange the glory of the robes of the saints for the robes of those who love money; and there will be much respect of persons in those days, and lovers of the glory of this world. And there will be many slanderers and [much] vainglory at the approach of the Lord, and the Holy Spirit will withdraw from many. And in those day there will not be many prophets, nor those who speak reliable words, except one here and there in different places, because of the spirit of error and of fornication, and of vainglory, and of the love of money, which there will be among those who are said to be servants of the One, and among those who receive that One. 29 And among the shepherds and the elders there will be great hatred towards one another. 30 For there will be great jealousy in the last days, for everyone will speak whatever pleases him in his own eyes. 31 And they will neglect (gr) the prophecy of the prophets who were before me, and my visions also...they will make ineffective, in order that they may speak what bursts out of their heart.”(Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah . 3:21-31)
The difficulty for non-historian Christians is that they are often unaware of "doctrinal shifts" and "evolutions" of "orthodoxy" over time. So much so, that they are often disoriented by early Christian doctrines and traditions. Add to this, the difficulty caused by lack of insight among the religious resulting in the inability to see that all of us interpret according to our bias (myself included), AND, we all have bias, and we all teach according to our own bias. The end result is that we tend to innovate and guess and use imperfect logic in our interpretations of religion and the net result is that we move away from original and authentic religion to our own versions of it. Even if we hold to the most basic text as a "canon", we still tend to innovate and interpret and change that "canons" text to reflect our personal beliefs. It is a very difficult situation.
The centuries following the death of Christ were described by a logia of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas as follows :
“Jesus said, “The kingdom of the [father] is like a certain woman who was carrying a [jar] full of meal. While she was walking [on the] road, still some distance from home, the handle of the jar broke and the meal emptied out behind her [on] the road. She did not realize it; she had noticed no accident. When she reached her house, she set the jar down and found it empty.” This logia is one of many sad descriptions of the failed attempt to pass on the doctrines and traditions of the early Christianities to later generations. In the last days, when one looks inside of modern Christian Churches, often, one finds that most of the substance that gave the early Church its’ value, is no longer to be found in it.
Well Julian658, It’s two a.m. for me and I am starting to ramble, and I have to stop somewhere or I can’t get anything done the rest of the day. My point is that I agree with you that the same tendencies that brought corruption into the Roman Movement are present in almost all individuals. There was nothing “defective” about the majority of individuals in the early Roman Religious Movement that is not shared by the majority of us as individuals.
In any case Julian 658; I wish you and the Catholic Church the very best of journeys and honor you for any good you are attempting to do. See you
Clear
σιδρνεω
Hi Nateswift : we went through 6,300 feet of elevation change. Hot, cold, snow, and back to hot. It was beautiful to see the leaves changing in the mountains. See you Nate
1)REGARDING THE TENDENCY TO APOSTATIZE FROM ORIGINAL RELIGION
I once saw an Opening post ask regarding the Jew’s motives in “turn[ing] away” from the gospel. I felt that this discussion had far reaching implications since the same mechanisms that caused the Jews to “turn away” from truth may then apply to ALL individuals who “turn away” from principles God reveals for mankind to follow. Another Christian poster immediately offered the insightful question : “Do you really think we [Christians] do any better?”
Honest discussions regarding this principle IS an appropriate and profound subject if Christianities are to ever gain insight into why Christians also “turn away” from truth, since, only a small portion of the many conflicting Christian theories on a specific doctrine CAN be correct and the rest must represent error.
[font="]Yet Christianities continue to innovate and develop new and different theological theories and move away (or “turn away”) from the more ancient christian traditions. It is as though Christianity has not avoided making the same mistakes as the Jews (in terms of abandoning and innovating away from early, original, revealed religion.)
Christians rarely flirt with this admission (which is so obvious to other religions as they correctly criticize Christians for having so many conflicting theories), yet occasionally we’ll have the tacit admission that Christians are “not above guessing at those traditions, adding to them, misunderstanding them, or even altering them.” As one poster described our shared tendency to apostatize.
Such words remind me of Pseudo-Hecateus when he says “We throngs of men go astray in our hearts when, to gain solace from misery, we set up as statues of gods figures worked from wood, or images of copper, gold or ivory. We imagine we are religious when we enjoin in their honor sacrifices and evil festivals. (#2 Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 5.113)
This principle that man innovates and then adopts changed religion has ALWAYS been true whether speaking of Jews or Christians. Prophets reveal authentic religion. Men then go astray. Other prophets attempt to restore authentic religion to mankind, which correction men then apostatize from, which other prophets attempt to restore, ad nauseum.
Perhaps apostasy is too strong a word. However, one cannot deny the clash between religion and science. To avoid any level of apostasy requires some rationalization. I have discussed this off the record with a Jesuit and a Franciscan monk.
I sat on an airplane next to the Franciscan monk on our way to Italy. He was actually headed all the way to Africa where he was working to help folks with HIV. This man was truly dedicated to help others and for that I had nothing but high admiration. He was truly driven to serve others less fortunate.
Since the plane ride is very long I eventually developed the courage to ask challenging questions regarding CC dogma and the bible. Without hesitation he freely expressed ideas that were similar to mine. He acknowledged that the bible is allegoric and his views on hell and the devil were identical to mine. But, this was off the record.
He was clearly a man of God with enormous dedication for his fellow humans. I then realized that his commitment to the Lord was all that mattered and that the rest was simply religious dogma to be celebrated, but at the same time knowing that it is man made religion.
Quote:
For example, When Levi prophesies to his son’s that Israel will someday lose the rights associated with authentic religion, he reaffirms that it was partly because of contamination of authentic religion with counterfeit commandments and having pride in their claim to authority :
It is not about losing the authenticity. This is about elevating oneself to a different plane where the man created dogma is acknowledged, but not taken as the word of God. In the end we don't know God. And we can live as Christians whether God is here or not. It does not really matter.
I understand the drive for self preservation and the idea of living forever. This causes people to concentrate on solely salvation and eternal life which is by definition a selfish condition. One can be a Christian and never think about saving our own skin.
I will continue later
CIAO
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
in the attacking that she sees going on. That is what the Sticky addresses. 
