As the scripture says, they were gathered two by two of their own kind. Horses can breed with donkeys, Wolves can breed with domestic dogs of all breeds because they share the same genetic information. A fish cannot breed with a monkey. There is no correlation with gentic infomation. Mutations and evolution do not add to the genetic information, they just subtract. I would be one that objects.
Most of Christianity did not accept the Trinity for the first roughly 300 years. It was generally agreed that Jesus was divine to some degree but the nature of this divinity was a hotly debated topic. None of the early Church fathers (with the possible exception of Tertullian and none prior to 200 AD) believed that Jesus was the "Alpha and Omega = God of Abraham". The leaders of the Church at the time considered Tertullian's ideas heretical. It was Emperor Constantine that dictated the modern Trinity Doctrine to the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. Even so it still took centuries for those who disagreed to be killed off or persecuted out existence.
Again I am baffled by your lack of knowledge being that you claim to be a minister - or at least have had ministerial training. Did you go to an actual Seminary or was it some online course. It is not some big secret that the early church fathers were Subordinationists - believed that the Son and the Holy Spirit are subordinate to God the Father in nature and being. Clement - "The apostles received the gospel for us from Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ was sent from God. So Christ is from God, and the apostles are from Christ: thus both came in proper order by the will of God."[5] Also, "Let all the heathen know that thou [the Father] art God alone, and that Jesus Christ is thy Servant..." Ignatius "Jesus Christ ... is the expressed purpose of the Father, just as the bishops who have been appointed throughout the world exist by the purpose of Jesus Christ."[ "Be subject to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ in the flesh was subject to the Father and the apostles were subject to Christ and the Father, so that there may be unity both fleshly and spiritual."[ "All of you are to follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery [the elders] as the apostles. Justin Martyr "I shall attempt to persuade you, [...] that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things [...] wishes to announce to them." "But to the Father of all, who is unbegotten, there is no name given. [...] And His Son, [...] the Word, who also was with Him and was begotten before the works, when at first He created and arranged all things by Him, is called Christ, in reference to His being anointed and God's ordering all things through Him; [...] But 'Jesus', His name as man and Saviour, has [...] significance. For He was made man [...] having been conceived according to the will of God the Father" and so on. I find it very difficult to believe that someone who attended a "real" Seminary would be ignorant of fact that there was serious debate within the early Church as to the nature of Christs divinity.
No, it's just that I have heard these lies one too many times. There was debate in the early Church about the deity of Christ, but that's not what you originally wrote. You wrote: "Most of Christianity did not accept the Trinity for the first roughly 300 years. It was generally agreed that Jesus was divine to some degree but the nature of this divinity was a hotly debated topic." "Most of Christianity?" You have quoted three men here whose words do not make your case, if you are familiar with their writings at all. I thought you were going to bring up Eusebius, but as it is your quote from Ignatius destroys your case instead of making it. And spare me the sneering, you need to make your case instead of attacking me, which you have not done.
This does not reflect the historical consensus of the early monastic Christians, who were BTW a major part of the early Christian population, the leading ones being mystics like Meister Eckhart and St. John of the Cross. To them, as you will find detailed in a good concordance, the word "Word" was a translation of "Logos" which means "idea" or "essence of an idea". This gets tricky since an idea requires time to develop and then to be expressed, and for "God" time does not pass, they said. Modern Christians have so much trouble understanding this that their truncated understanding sees "Word/Logos" to be "Jesus". It's much easier that way. Also, to say "He is everywhere" again fails to reflect the historical consensus of the mystics who said time and space are human concepts; God IS. You cannot go anywhere and find that to not be true in that place. God perpetually IS; there is no exception. They also said that God is not a "He", but his trait of being the Source of all that is causes the appearance of a father-figure with the authority and power of a man, to the human mind. And therefore God is considered to be "He". Again, the historical perspective of the monastic mystics is omitted. God is a Spirit, and the mystics said God created mankind as spirit. This is reflected in your statement "man was created as an eternal soul, that transcends his material being." But it conflicts with the notion of man sharing traits with the creature. Maybe it's just an issue of clarity. The mystical monastic view: The Son of God is "Christ" or "Logos", and that is our own unrealized Identity. Jesus realized his Identity and taught that we can do the same. It (the conscious realization) provides the pathway to the direct, immediate experience of our own oneness with God. Salvation is the result. We can never play the same old game of pretending to be a human. We then know "who I AM" and that "I AM." Acknowledging God and atonement of Jesus can be helpful on our path, but it is not salvation, itself. The Spirit of God, being omnipresent, is already within even if we fail to be aware of it. The mystical monastic view: The "great deceiver" is human mind. It is able to twist the truth, reason out a lie to be the "truth", to twist and turn back on itself, and make evil appear to be good. It is much like a serpent or snake in its twists and turns. But Satan is not a being. Satan is not a separate force conspiring against God. Satan is the "collective" human mindset; the inherent nature of the human mind. The historical mystical monastic view: the evils and suffering and deceptions of our human nature are temporary. It will end for he who discovers his own Christ-nature within while walking this world of limits. That discovery reveals the Truth to he who discovers. The only thing that changes is the human awareness and the thinking that follows. As Luke 17:20-21 says, the "Kingdom of God is within" even a sinner. But it does him no good because he denies it or at least hasn't Realized it. (This is actually the "good news") Yes, this is what it has become. Sometime in... I believe it was the 1600s, .... the Pope (the Catholic Church was the only church then) put out what amounted to a "decree" or directive that said contemplation was the proper interest or pursuit of the highest church figures and was not for the layman, priests, etc. This was essentially a ban on contemplative prayer, which was the constant practice and purpose of the monastics and what produced the mystical insights which they taught. The ban truncated the development of Christians. It put up a barrier that said you can go up to this point but not any farther. So the religious looked for alternatives to offer the advancing Christians so they could keep learning and developing somehow. They accomplished that by turning to a study of the Bible with cross-referencing verses, word searches, learning a little Aramaic and Hebrew..... all activities of the mind. The search within had ended with the decree. And now the history of that decree is itself unknown to most. But this is where the theology changed to eventually become the nonsense it is today with its promise that all you need do is to decide to accept Jesus' suffering as "payment" for your sins to find "salvation". And all deny Luke 17:21 as they spin it from its plain words into something it doesn't say so they can preserve their distortions. Sorry.
I did not quote all of the early Christians. Do you know who Clement was ? ... as in the Leader of the Church around 95 AD ? If he did not accept the Trinity doctrine that who did ? What do you mean "not make my case" ? Do you know what the Trinity doctrine even is ? I stated directly what I was referring to .. the claim that Jesus is God as in "the God of Abraham" as in homoousios - one substance with the Father. The three mentioned - Ignatius, Clement, Martyr .. did not believe that Jesus was "The God of Abraham" How does Clement saying "Let all the heathen know that thou [the Father] art God alone, and that Jesus Christ is thy Servant" not go against the idea that Jesus was God ? Give me a break and stop the raging denial. It is not like theologians have not studied this. What part of "God Alone" and Jesus is thy Servant (= subordinate to the Father) are you having trouble understanding ?
I'm sure someone has brought this up, but the Arian and Adoptionist sects illustrate very well how much disagreement there was on the nature of Christ's divinity. Both appear to be defensible based on some readings of the Bible. On the other hand, while the explicit doctrine of the trinity was not spelled out until very late, we do get the basic formula listed by Ignatius in 110. So something like the doctrine we know was being talked about by some people by then. Like so many things in Christianity, it's hard to say what exactly the spectrum of beliefs were in the first few centuries or so. In my own opinion, the holy trinity is very clearly a product of Hellenistic influences. You can draw parallels to Neo-Platonism and even Stoic-influenced writings like those of Plutarch. Even if you accept this though, it's very hard to say when that influence may have happened. The synthesis of Greek philosophy and Abrahamic religion goes back to Philo of Alexandria, but a lot of Christianity was formed well after that.
Yes, I know exactly what it is, I recite the Creed every Sunday, and I know who Clement was. And you still don't know what you are talking about.
You running around in a circle of denial crying "NO NO NO" .... "You don 't know what you are talking about" is not an argument for anything. Nice cherry picking by the way Once again: How does Clement saying "Let all the heathen know that thou [the Father] art God alone, and that Jesus Christ is thy Servant" not go against the idea that Jesus was God. Hopefully you will come up with some kind of coherent argument this time ... something other than the circle of denial.
The major problem i see here is in definitions, or more precisely, classifications. Someone brought up the correlation of the phylogenetic tree... Mammals, cats and dogs... Family>> genus>> species. I think this is a good comparison with the 'classifications' of worldviews. Worldview: >> theism/ >> Abrahamic based/ >> Christian based/ >> biblical Christianity If you are addressing ALL Abrahamic based religions/worldviews, then you would include Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and all variations thereof. If you narrow it to Christian based or derived worldviews, then all sects, off shoots, and even heretical departures would be included. But, if you narrow the classification still more, you get historical, biblical Christianity, which is the 'flavor' that the OP is defining. Obviously, every Abrahamic based religion/worldview does not accept the definitions in the OP. Nor does every 'Christian derived' sect, cult, heresy, or denomination. But for a biblically based definition, and one that aligns with historic creeds, statements of faith, and Christian apologias, if provides a workable summary, which was the goal. If we were defining a specific species, we would not get sidetracked with comparisons to other genera, or even family based classifications. Defining a Siamese cat , for example, would not include comparisons to wolves, trout, bacteria, or cabbages, even though all can be considered 'living things.' We narrow the classifications to a specific species, or in this case, a worldview. Biblical, historical Christianity is under the spotlight, here, and that is what we're trying to define. If the topic was Mormonism, we could examine the specific qualities of that worldview. If it was 'Theistic worldviews,' we could lump a lot of different beliefs under that classification. But to categorize all 'Christian based' worldviews as 'all the same!' is like saying all mammals are the same. They are, IF the topic was 'all mammals.' But if the topic is 'Siamese cats,' any attempt to include all mammals is off topic and fallacious. I observe this fallacy a lot from critics of biblical Christianity. They do not follow the nuances and divergent specifics of the Christian based worldviews, and lump them all together. But that is merely a problem for those who are ignorant of the specific beliefs and tenets of faith, in a worldview. Many atheists, for example, lump ALL theistic beliefs together, sometimes with a caricature of theistic beliefs, like sky fairies or flying spaghetti monsters. But this is just a dismissal tactic to disparage theistic belief, not to understand the actual specifics of what someone believes. It is an expression of religious bigotry , to denigrate another's beliefs to prop up their own.
What you offer here is revisionism, and a distortion of the teachings of the early church fathers and apologists. Yes, there were heresies. There was a heated debate over the divinity of Jesus, which has not really cooled to this day. It is STILL the centrally defining tenet of biblical Christian orthodoxy. Jesus is STILL the 'Stone of stumbling, and a Rock of offense.' But for historic, biblical, orthodox Christians, He is 'very God of very God.' The departures of heretics does not nullify orthodoxy. The existence of lies does not negate the truth.
And if there is historical, credible evidence for this event, it carries some specific, factual descriptions, that do not vary with time, feeling, and winds of philosophical speculations. Is there an exact, historical definition of biblical Christianity? IMO, yes. It has specific, clear, and historic teachings in its lineage, which make up the 'unbroken line of orthodoxy,' that i spoke of earlier. Departures from this orthodoxy cannot be included. They are 'not-Christianity' heresies or offshoots, and lack the doctrinal purity of the original. Is there confusion about this? Absolutely. That was one of my motivations for starting this thread, to address the misinformation, confusion, and distortions that are constantly pitched as 'Christian!' There is ONLY ONE, orthodox, historical, and biblical 'Christian' worldview. There are many departures, but only one original. Some do not realize this. That is why creeds, apologies, and historical quotes have been provided, from MILLENNIA of Christian scholarship. Apologists and defenders of the faith have CONSTANTLY strived to protect, defend, and preserve the historical accuracy and integrity of the Gospel Message. It has been preserved, and the Christians alive now owe a debt of gratitude to those who have dedicated their lives in the defense and preservation of the Christian faith. Enemies have tried to destroy the Message, over the millennia, but it remains, pure to the original, with the same Power to give abundant life to those who receive it.
Here is Ignatius again, whose words you presented as proof of your case: "In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever" "We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For ‘the Word was made flesh.' Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passable body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts." Want to tell me again how Ignatius did not believe Jesus was God?
Another side point, in the distinction between objective and subjective, Truth: For many biblical Christians, the subjective reality of their communion with God is enough. They care little about any debates over creeds, manuscripts, historical evidence, or science. They know their Redeemer, and that is enough. That IS, after all, what makes one a 'child of God'.. the living, indwelling Spirit that bears witness that they are forgiven and accepted into the Family of God. They have the 'subjective' basis for their faith, and nothing else really matters. But scholars, apologists, and defenders of the faith have seen a need for an OBJECTIVE basis for this faith. It is not JUST a subjective transformation of the individual soul, but has an 'unbroken line' of history, scholarship, and orthodoxy that has kept the message pure and unadulterated by subjective feelings and especially, heretical departures. Romans 8:9You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. 10But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness. 11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you. 12Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. 14For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. 15The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.”16The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. 17Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ...
Nothing to be sorry about.. What you describe here are departures from orthodox, historical Christianity. You've added some new age revisionism, with some speculations about some of the more obscure heresies in the early days of Christianity, but none of that has ever been mainstream, and has been refuted by creeds, statements of faith, and apologists, over the years. This is fine as a statement of YOUR faith, and it is a growing worldview, especially here in Sedona. But it is not THE historical, biblical, Christian worldview established by our Founder. Vague, unsourced references to offshoot beliefs carry no credibility in defining biblical Christianity. There is no evidence that any of the opinions you present were anything but offshoot departures from biblical orthodoxy. The early church fathers and apologists refuted these mystical dreamings as false teachings and heresies.. they were not orthodox to the original teachings of Jesus, but departures.
So you are saying the Apostle John, the one that witnessed the three year ministry of Jesus on this earth and was the only one to behold his death on the cross and saw Him in resurrected form, did not believe Jesus was the Alpha and Omega? Even though he referenced it 3 times in the Book of Revelations (1:8,21:6, 22:13)? The Book that was written within a mid life-span of Jesus death on the cross? Guess I don't give a whit about what the early church fathers purported to believe when it is different from the writings of the Apostles and what they held dear. The Holy Spirit preserved their witness in the form of scripture and all the demons of hell and traditions of man cannot touch it for those that seek it's Truth. We were told there would be wolves in sheeps clothing that would preach a different Gospel.
Yes, actually "orthodox, historical Christianity is a departure from the original early practice of hundreds of years. Somehow Christians think the farther we get from the early days, the more "correct" their practice is. The worldly mind of man has certainly revised the early. original practices. The "new age revisionism" that you worry about was the practice of St. John of the Cross, Meister Eckhart, Julian of Norwich, St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Catherine of Genoa, Mme. Jeanne Guyon, Dionysius of Alexandria, Augustine of Hippo, Gregory of Nyssa, Pseudo-Dionysius (St. Denys), St. Francis of Assisi, Henry Suso, Richard Rolle, ..... -and we haven't gotten to the 1500s yet. These are some of your "new age revisionists". And refutations? Your bible says: I Corinthians, 2:14 - "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." So you have your natural man refuting the things of the spirit of the ancients and their practice. To the natural man, memorizing verses and precision in translations beats the hell out of the direct, immediate experience of the Spirit. Yet your bible says: John 14:26 - "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John 16:12 - 13 "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth 1 John 2:27 - "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." Your "historical, biblical" understanding of the bible is a history that began about 1600 years A.D. And "biblical" because the practice of contemplation was given up and an intellectual practice replaced it. That's the "mind of man" worshipping itself.
Why are you complaining to me? It is not my fault that the early Church fathers did not believe that Jesus and the God of Abraham were one in the same. I posted what these fathers actually said. You are the one that is giving a revisionist history. With the emperor’s approval, the Council rejected the minority view of Arius and, having nothing definitive with which to replace it, approved the view of Athanasius—also a minority view. The church was left in the odd position of officially supporting, from that point forward, the decision made at Nicaea to endorse a belief held by only a minority of those attending. The groundwork for official acceptance of the Trinity was now laid—but it took more than three centuries after Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection for this unbiblical teaching to emerge! The Council of Nicaea did not end the controversy. Karen Armstrong explains: “Athanasius managed to impose his theology on the delegates . . . with the emperor breathing down their necks . . . “The show of agreement pleased Constantine, who had no understanding of the theological issues, but in fact there was no unanimity at Nicaea. After the council, the bishops went on teaching as they had before, and the Arian crisis continued for another sixty years. Arius and his followers fought back and managed to regain imperial favor. Athanasius was exiled no fewer than five times. It was very difficult to make his creed stick” Professor Ryrie, also cited earlier,writes, “In the second half of the fourth century, three theologians from the province of Cappadocia in eastern Asia Minor [today central Turkey] gave definitive shape to the doctrine of the Trinity” (p. 65). They proposed an idea that was a step beyond Athanasius’ view—that God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit were coequal and together in one being, yet also distinct from one another. In the year 381, 44 years after Constantine’s death, Emperor Theodosius the Great convened the Council of Constantinople (today Istanbul, Turkey) to resolve these disputes. Gregory of Nazianzus, recently appointed as archbishop of Constantinople, presided over the council and urged the adoption of his view of the Holy Spirit. Historian Charles Freeman states: “Virtually nothing is known of the theological debates of the council of 381, but Gregory was certainly hoping to get some acceptance of his belief that the Spirit was consubstantial with the Father [meaning that the persons are of the same being, as substance in this context denotes individual quality]. Bizarrely, a man who up to this point wasn’t a Christian was appointed to preside over a major church council tasked with determining what it would teach regarding the nature of God!.... Now that a decision had been reached, Theodosius would tolerate no dissenting views. He issued his own edict that read: “We now order that all churches are to be handed over to the bishops who profess Father, Son and Holy Spirit of a single majesty, of the same glory, of one splendor, who establish no difference by sacrilegious separation, but (who affirm) the order of the Trinity by recognizing the Persons and uniting the Godhead” (quoted by Richard Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God, 1999, p. 223). Another edict from Theodosius went further in demanding adherence to the new teaching: “Let us believe the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgement, they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles [assemblies] the name of churches. “They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation, and the second the punishment which our authority, in accordance with the will of Heaven, shall decide to inflict” (reproduced in Documents of the Christian Church, Henry Bettenson, editor, 1967, p. 22). This unusual chain of events is why theology professors Anthony and Richard Hanson would summarize the story in their book Reasonable Belief: A Survey of the Christian Faith by noting that the adoption of the Trinity doctrine came as a result of “a process of theological exploration which lasted at least three hundred years . . . In fact it was a process of trial and error (almost of hit and miss), in which the error was by no means all confined to the unorthodox . . . It would be foolish to represent the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as having been achieved by any other way” (1980, p. 172)." https://www.ucg.org/studienhilfen/b...he-surprising-origins-of-the-trinity-doctrine Sorry dude ... the Trinity as we know it came to be as a result of trial and error and as a function of political efficacy.
You completely ignored addressing the words of Clement - which was the subject of the post you are responding to ? The denial dance continues. Although you refuse to address the content of my post ... I will address the content of your post. Ignatius does not state that Jesus and the Father are one. Jesus is described as "the Logos" (commonly mistranslated as "the Logos"). The Logos was the emissary between God and Man. The Logos was made flesh ... and while worshiped as a God (at least by Ignatius) was subject to corruption. Do you believe God - the Father - is subject to corruption ?
John the Apostle did not write Revelations. Revelations barely made it into cannon and was regarded as spurious by the guy that put the first Bible together (Eusebius). Written in a mid life-span of Jesus death on the cross ? Rev was written (90-95AD) http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/revelation.html If we go to the earliest Gospel .. "Mark" .. and the next Gospel "Matt" which uses all of Mark and adds to it - and look at the words of Jesus - Jesus never refers to himself as "The Father". He always refers to the Father as someone other than himself. Jesus prays to the Father and in one case asks God "Take this cup from my hand". On the Cross Jesus calls out to the Father "My God My God - why have you forsaken me" So what happened here ? Did Jesus forget who he was in some kind of masochistic delerium on the cross ?
He also says he and the father are one. I think the Father was the source of JC, that he had the father in him, making him a son of the father, sharing something in common with the father. Essence. Could be when the creator assumes a physical body, he becomes the son, but when not assuming that body, is the father. The origin of the son. And so if the father is appearing on this level of reality, he is the son, and JC said we are all sons of the father, and used jewish scripture to evidence that to the people who wanted him killed for blasphemy. The jews did not hold this belief that the father could be in a human body, given they saw the body as too corrupt to contain him. Too unclean. Of course, a rebirth would make the body pure enough for the father to dwell in it. I think that was basically the message of christ, the good news. This is not my idea but it has been around for a long time. I got it from the Episcopal priest, Alan Watts back in the early 70s. I went to a talk that he gave long ago, a couple years before his death in 1973. Back before I became agnostic. I became agnostic when I was honest enough with myself to see that "knowing" is simply impossible, since we are taking the words of others as truth, which cannot be verified by any of us. This also went a long way in creating honesty in other parts of my life, and to embrace it as a worthy, timeless value. Not that anyone that I know is perfect in honesty. Some are just more honest than others. But being able to see oneself wanting to be dishonest helps in maintaining honesty. Too bad it doesn't work 100 percent of the time.
There are many strange things about the Gospel of John - the first of which is that it contradicts the previous gospels (Mark/Matt). This Gospel was written much later than the previous gospels (90-120 AD). The gospel is anti-Jewish - and is a Pauline Hellenist fusion work. Christian theology is evolving and with it the nature of the divinity of Jesus. In Mark Jesus is made divine at his baptism. In Matt Jesus is made divine at birth. In John we have Jesus as "Pre-Existent" The author is trying to use terminology and ideas that are familiar to a Greek audience in order to expand the popularity of Christianity. He introduces the term "Logos" - (Mistranslated as "word" in modern Bibles). While the Greek word Logos could mean "word", in a religious context it meant the emissary between God and Man. This would be the understanding of "Logos" to all Pauline Christians of the day. Jesus then was "the Logos" who spoke Gods word through the Holy Spirit . The Holy Spirit was like an Aeon or emanation from the Godhead. Jesus is then one with God through the Holy Spirit - according to the Author of John.
In regards to the 4th gospel, John, it has also been said that this gospel meshes with the gnostic gospel of thomas, by some scholars. In fact there is quite a bit of similarity between the gospel of thomas and the gospel of john. That they could appear together. What is your thinking on this? Personally I have never really spent any time comparing the two, and just accepted what this or that scholar has said. I have also read scholars who maintained that much of the NT contains a corruption which came from ancient greek philosophy and that one can see its influence and effect. Do you agree with this opinion? For myself, the first time I read the bible, cover to cover, my impression was that I noticed an incoherence between what JC actually supposedly taught, and what was taught in the NT after his death. Indeed, I perceived the teachings of christ to be very gnostic in nature. Although I was only to discover gnosticism years later. But what I perceived from the gospel of thomas was basically the same thing christ had taught, and to this day I still maintain that position. And of course I understand that scholars think that the gospel of thomas came later than the other gospels, and yet I am suspect of that. For there is no way to tell with any certainty that the gospel of thomas was not already in existence before any of the other gospels were written which was at best several decades after the death of JC. Given that the gospel of thomas and the teachings of christ appear to be very mystical in nature, and given mysticism existed prior to christ, being the perennial philosophy as Aldous Huxley called it, Philosophia Perennis, that I also discovered later on only adds to the idea that my interpretation of the teachings of christ was at least logical. And several learned books have been written by people who see the commonality of eastern and western philosophy, at least in regards to the mystical interpretation, the perennial philosophy. And so , I am in no way original here in what I saw in the teachings of christ. Although I do find it odd that my own perception of the teachings of christ took a mystical course, while not even knowing about mysticism or gnosticism at the time of my reading the complete bible. Which of course was 180 degrees from the christianity that I was conditioned with from the time I could walk, coming from a very orthodox background and literal interpretation of scripture. I should have been affected more by my own conditioning, and yet the manner in which I perceived the teachings, was much greater than the conditioning, which obviously did not "take". I personally have come to think that Paul, the self appointed apostle, whose writing are the predominant writings in the NT has more effect upon theology than anyone else, including JC. And I developed a great mistrust of the man, in the first reading of the NT, and was confirmed by the second reading. I just think it is possible that christianity was hijacked early on, by mere mortal men, and one saw the effect of organizing a religion taking place, and the creation of what would become dogma later on. The symbolism of what happened in the temple at the moment of the death of christ, when the curtain that separated the Holy of Holies, from the congregation, where only ritually cleansed priests could enter into it, has relevance. For that curtain was torn asunder, from top to bottom, removing the symbolic barrier between man and God, between the imperfection of man, which is unclean, so that man, without a priest, can have some relationship with the Creator. That is, the priest is no longer needed. Of course if this is the correct symbolic way which this should be interpreted, then there is no need for an authority of man to be interposed between man and his creator. And this would have negated what arose in christianity with a heiarchy of men between man and god. Of course this benefited man, those that insist of being an authority, and having a role in one's salvation. A smart business move for self gain, but contrary to the symbolism I mentioned. And this lack of a need for man to be between man and God is basically what one can get from the teachings of christ. So to me it looks like human nature was also involved, in what was to become orthodox christianity. And human nature corrupts everything that it touches, if allowed to corrupt. If not for this very common thing, perhaps man would live a life based upon logic, reason, and rationality, in all things. From gov't to our mundane daily existence. And the problems created by human nature itself, would have been solved long ago by logic, rationality and reason. And so many of our problems are created by the base side of human nature which in reality appears to be much more powerful than logic, reason, and rationality. More powerful in the sense that it over rides logic, reason and rationality many, many times. I have seen this in my own life and in the lives of those around me. So I cannot doubt as to its power and influence upon our reality.
The history of Christianity is shrowded in mystery. The Church of Jerusalem - founded by the disciples - disappeared. What ever the beliefs of the original disciples was is a mystery. The group that took over was the Pauline branch of Christianity - mostly non Jews. After the fall of the Temple around 70 AD the Jews were persecuted and the Church (Pauline Christians) separated itself from anything Jewish - including the OT ! https://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Fiscus Judaicus.pdf We get a sense of this separation from the writings of Luke/Acts and to some degree in John. In contrast to Matt/Mark - these later gospels take on a distinctly anti Jewish character. James 2 is also very instructive - Where James - leader of the Church of Jerusalem- rails against the "Faith Alone" doctrine that is being promoted by some Christian groups. In Luke/Acts we also learn about the animosity between Paul and the Church of Jerusalem. There were many different Christian groups. The Gnostics were one of them. I will not say which was right but, what is true is that it was 300 years after the death of Christ when the doctrines that we associate with Christianity today were developed. This development took place over a couple of centuries. During this time any writings that conflicted with this doctrine were actively sought out and destroyed ...along with the people that held beliefs that conflicted with official Church doctrine. Luckily some of these writings were buried and recently dug up .. as in over the last 100 years or so. There is some good information in this thesis. http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/thesis.pdf
