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.
I am not disputing that the apostles and their followers created a hierarchical organization against the wishes of Jesus himself because they were flawed human beings desirous of power and control over their followers. That desire has been the dominant motive of church organization for millennia.
And that's something I believe Jesus Christ never intended. The Book, "A World Lit Only By Fire" offers some great insights into this period of time.
Looks like a very interesting book, but it seems to be about the Middle Ages?
I think we see pretty much eye to eye on the degree of "organization." I don't think there was any formal structure, you seem to think any such was minimal.....ok.
If their claims don't seem to fit with the facts, we should indeed question it rather than just accept what they say. If some sound evidence can be produced for a Hebrew Matthew resembling the gospel we have now of at least 2nd c date, I'll accept it.
I'm afraid I am not persuaded by reference to al the 'principles from genesis to Revelation. Sure, Matthew referenced the OT scriptures for his prophecies, but he got them wrong. That's what puts him beyond being a Hebrew as far as the facts go.
I do agree at least that it is part of the evolution of Christianity from Hebrew beginnings to Roman state cult. But it is a good way along that process, not at the start.
And what FACTS would that be, exactly? If you discount all their testimony regarding that, then you have to discount all their testimony across the board. Are you willing to do that? Just curious.
I didn't expect you to be persuaded by that, you'd have to be able to see the principles yourself first. It was just my own reason for believing. What did Matthew get wrong?
I don't, however, see why it should be any shock that they were written in Hebrew, by Hebrew speaking Jews. If you understand the mindset they would have had, which is that if these writings were being inspired by G-d, then they should be just as painstakingly recorded, as the ones that came before them were, a peculiarly Jewish trait, where if a mistake was made, even a tiny one, the whole skin was tossed and burned, and the letters on each page were counted. Now THAT'S attention to detail.
It's also apparent to me, that an emerging anti-Jewish religion gaining control of the political leaders, would also benefit from having such Jewishness removed or whitewashed at best, ala the Hellenization of the scriptures, such as changing synagogue to "church", Yahshua to Jesus, ect. But then that's just my opinion (and the opinion of a few scholars I've read). Peace
And what FACTS would that be, exactly? If you discount all their testimony regarding that, then you have to discount all their testimony across the board. Are you willing to do that? Just curious.
I didn't expect you to be persuaded by that, you'd have to be able to see the principles yourself first. It was just my own reason for believing. What did Matthew get wrong?
I don't, however, see why it should be any shock that they were written in Hebrew, by Hebrew speaking Jews. If you understand the mindset they would have had, which is that if these writings were being inspired by G-d, then they should be just as painstakingly recorded, as the ones that came before them were, a peculiarly Jewish trait, where if a mistake was made, even a tiny one, the whole skin was tossed and burned, and the letters on each page were counted. Now THAT'S attention to detail.
It's also apparent to me, that an emerging anti-Jewish religion gaining control of the political leaders, would also benefit from having such Jewishness removed or whitewashed at best, ala the Hellenization of the scriptures, such as changing synagogue to "church", Yahshua to Jesus, ect. But then that's just my opinion (and the opinion of a few scholars I've read). Peace
No, you seem to be falling into the believe or Not trap. Everything should be taken on its merits.
Let me take Josephus for example. Both held up (as Raffs pointed out) as gospel truth by the believers when it suits them and dismissed as no more historically reliable than Popeye when he doesn't. Some of his stories seem basically sound, though they sound like a spin doctor's portfolo at times. Some stories even of his own time sound mythical or at least fanciful, but the story of Masada was dramatically shown to be true.
However, just because he is the best and a not at all bad source for his time, the further back he goes, the more he relies on dubious sources, and while he does his best with the Hyksos and what sources he has, modern research has shown him to be very far from accurate.
So - If I recall this is about post 600 A.D Hebrew references to and translations of, Matthew, no, they count for nothing and when it can be demonstrated that no Hebrew reader - indeed no Jew who knew his Torah, could have made his blunders, that is proof as solid as the scarabs of Yakub, even in the 21st c.
Sure. Jesus personally chose and ordained His twelve Apostles. None of them were part of a "professional clergy," not while Jesus was alive and not afterwards. Graduating with honors from a divinity college or theological seminary does not qualify a person to serve in a position of leadership, and it didn't back in Jesus' day either. So many people today believe that once Jesus died, God's priesthood ceased to exist on the earth. I can't understand why, when Hebrews speaks of the calling of men to the priesthood. In Numbers 25:13 and Exodus 40:15, the Lord himself refers to the his priesthood as "everlasting."
In Hebrews 5:1, we read, "For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins..." and then in Hebrews 5:4, we're told how this ordination takes place: "And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." So, how did Aaron obtain his priesthood? He was called by God through a prophet, Moses, and was formally ordained to the priesthood. Men don't just "choose" to have the priesthood. The person to whom the priesthood belongs (i.e. Jesus Christ) must choose and ordain them.
The word "priesthood" has an entirely different connotation today among most Christians than it did in Jesus Christ's day, and no wonder. It has evolved into something quite different than it was in the beginning.
Looks like a very interesting book, but it seems to be about the Middle Ages?
Yeah, it deals more with the Middle Ages than with the period immediately following the establishment of Christianity, but it does touch on how the Church evolved over time. It's a good book and very well-researched.
A professional "clergy" was developing by the end of the first century.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
Leaders were recognized as such and respect was assumed for all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I am pleased if you are agreeing with me and nate.
Well, don't be too awfully pleased. Nate mentioned "leaders" who were "recognized as such." Any time you have leaders, you have some form of an organization. A person can become a leader in many different ways.
1. He can assume an Alexander Haig posture and declare, "I'm in charge now," and assume that everybody's going to fall in line.
2. He can be appointed by someone in charge, like the POTUS appoints those in his cabinet. The masses may not be happy with the appointment, but there's little they can do to change things.
3. He can be chosen by the people, by common assent. This works well in some instances, but it can also have some pretty disastrous results if the people are misled by empty promises or are influenced by a charismatic personality. 4. He can be called of God and ordained by those having the proper authority.
There may be other ways, too. But I believe the Apostles were called of God and given the authority to ordain bishops to oversee the affairs of individual congregations. These bishops, too, were given authority, but it was more limited than that of the Apostles. None of this means that any of these leaders were to be put on a pedestal and could do nothing wrong, nor does it mean that they were morally superior to the remainder of the congregation. But, they did have a function and they did serve a purpose, and I believe they assumed their leadership by the 4th way I mentioned that this can take place.
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.
