Yes. There IS 'One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God..' The message has not changed, but the same gospel that brought rebirth and salvation to the first century, still has power and effect in the 21st century. Even the lies and distortions are unchanged.
I can put on my lab coat and talk science, too. And i see no conflict, as long as you can differentiate between facts and opinions; theories and empiricism. The problem today, is the abandonment of reason, in EITHER philosophical OR material discussions. Facts become irrelevant , if they conflict with the Narrative. We live in an age of anti-science, where mandates from authority pass for scientific methodology. Understanding the material world is no longer the goal, but promoting a mythical belief.
I did not intend it that way, though the basic topic is a definition/summary of the Christian faith. But it is open to any perspective, as long as there are facts to support it. 'Interest' is subjective. What is fascinating to some is boring to others.
This is why we need more of a focus on science in education. For one thing, we'd learn that there is no conflict between theory and empiricism in science, as the conflict comes from using the social/philosophical definition of theory.
Nit picking degrees of relationship ? Holy Carp that is a strange comment given we are discussing the claim that Irenaeus was a "student" of Polycarp and it turns out that he had never even spoken to the man. What "relationship" ? There was none other than a kid hearing a preacher a few times - hardly a basis for the claim that Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp and received any instruction from him. Influence .. OK .. but that is it. I agree that there is no need to go further down the tangent/rabbit hole you are digging as it does not address any of the central points that I made and thus is just deflection and avoidance. I agree that the claim that Irenaeus was a "student" of Polycarp is a false narrative - at least when the claim is made in a defacto way as was the case in your link. Your claim of an unbroken line of orthodoxy is not supported by the evidence. Nowhere in the extant writing of Polycarp does claim to be instructed by John. Irenaeus, in his extant works does not claim Polycarp was instructed by John. The idea that Irenaeus hearing Polycarp once or twice as a kid maintains some kind of doctrinal purity is a flawed idea - on many levels. Sticking head out of this rabbit hole and focusing again on the Gospel of John -and how it diverges from Matt/Mark in some problematic ways. https://infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/john_context.html
The differences between the various varieties of the Christian faith have motivated wars and supported large numbers of variations that are seen by CHRISTIANS throughout history as far too significant to allow for reconciliation. Plus, you mention "The faith once delivered." Yet, you want to exclude the other Abrahamic faiths that are founded on the Bible, but that have differences in interpretation - differences in "faith once delivered". But, I guess I'm not supposed to raise this issue, because the thread must be allowed to assume that only Christianity represents the "faith once delivered". As for salvation, Catholicism has disagreements with protestants as to how one reaches heaven, religious hierarchy, etc. But, you seem to discount that for some reason. Admittedly, UFAN sort of finessed that in the OP, apparently attempting to emphasize his idea of religious unity. But, that's kind of fake if the approach is limited to ignoring the differences or attempting to stake an earlier date of origin/schism/interpretation.
When I read the bible, I came up with another and different idea. One that actually could happen in the reality in which we all live and are familiar with. To keep it very simple, but I could expound if I had to, at one time man existed without being ruled over the the ego, the self image, which demands not only physical gratification but psychological gratification as well. In this state of being, man was metaphorically one with the Creator. The consciousness of the Creator, a fragment of it as much as the brain could recieve, being a transciever, was in man. And an ego did not exist. When man fell, in Eden, this connection with the Creator was lost, as the ego assumed control, pushing aside that part of the Creator which had been in control of the organism. And this changed human consciousness. What began then was the story which would eventually take man back to a union with his original consciousness before the Fall in Eden. The story ended with the appearance of Christ. He, told man the way to get back, and it demanded a rebirth of consciousness, which could only be achieved by a path of seeking the kingdom which still lies within man, but has been kicked to the side by the existence of a very powerful ego. He was killed for teaching how to get back, and a religion arose after his death which was about something completely different, and did not lead to the kingdom. And that is what I get out of the bible.
I don't know where you get your information, but it is either prejudiced misinformation, or blatant lies. The relationship between Polycarp, John, and Irenaeus is commonly known in ancient Christian history. Tertullian, Eusebius, and others have recorded the connection between them. Some modern 'theory' by anti-Christian bigots has little credibility. So you can believe whatever you want, and cling to revisionist history, but it does not change reality, nor the lineage of Christian orthodoxy . Polycarp served as bishop of Smyrna for some six decades, from the closing years of the first century to the mid-second century. The early-third-century theologian Tertullian writes in chapter 32 of his Prescription Against Heretics that, according to “original records,” it was the apostle John himself who ordained Polycarp to that office. His later years as bishop saw major changes begin to occur within the church. W.H.C. Frend, a prominent 20th-century church historian, describes the period from 135–193 as a period of “acute hellenization” of the church. It was a time noted for the “rise of orthodoxy.” As a link to the apostolic age, Polycarp vigorously sought to prevent both of these developments. Irenaeus, a second-century theologian and student of Polycarp, recorded his memories of his mentor. The theologian wrote to a heretic known as Florinus about Polycarp’s dedication to passing on the teachings of the apostles. Although Irenaeus’s original account is lost to history, church historian Eusebius quoted a portion of it, including the following, in book 5 of his Ecclesiastical History: “When I was still a boy I saw you [Florinus] in Lower Asia in Polycarp’s company. . . . I can describe the place where blessed Polycarp sat and talked, his goings out and comings in, the character of his life, his personal appearance, his addresses to crowded congregations. I remember how he spoke of his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord; how he repeated their words from memory; and how the things that he had heard them say about the Lord, His miracles and His teaching, things that he had heard direct from the eye-witnesses of the Word of Life, were proclaimed by Polycarp in complete harmony with Scripture." http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/biography-polycarp/534.aspx So if you think some modern day skeptic with an agenda is going to overide the credibility of 2000 years of Christian scholarship , history, and genealogy, you are mistaken. That is for enemies of Christianity, who prefer lies to truth. infidels.org? Really? You expect an accurarate recounting of Christian history from that?
.. a bit off topic here.. but i have examined this in great detail in other threads. This is a more in depth thread: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-rise-of-anti-science.349804/
I was raised in a Mormon household and lost my faith. I am curious how someone goes the opposite route as me and goes from atheist to religious.
You are deep in the depths of denial. If you want to call me a liar .. feel free but quit lying to yourself. I gave you the extant works of both Polycarp and Irenaeus in relation to Polycarp. Neither state that Polycarp was a "student" of John .. so it is your link that is telling tall tales. For you to call me a liar - when all I have done is post what these fellows actually said - is preposterous nonsense. Eusebius is writing over 100 years after the death of Irenaeus at a time when pious fraud is the rule rather than the exception. Your link does not mention Tertullian and it lies about the relationship between Polycarp and Irenaeus "Mentor". Then all you can manage is ad hom rather than address "facts" stated in the previous link. It is not like it is some big secret that the Gospel of John differs markedly from Mark and Matt.
So what? The ONLY part of Christianity and the Bible I follow is the Beatitudes. The rest is just folderol to me. and I don't see why even religious people make such a fuss about this The whole point of religion is to be a good person, not what you believe. If God is going to send me and billions of others into eternal torment because we do or don't follow one or another batshit crazy person from the 1st Century then **** him. I'll go to hell and be glad of it because I don't see how spending eternity singing the praises of a complete and utterly gaping ******* is a whole lot better than a lake of fire anyway. At least it's warm and I won't be surrounded by a bunch of hypocrites
What wars are you talking about? Spell it out, I grow weary of the generic charge of wars when I know bloody well that wars have been fought by factions for everything BUT religious differences. I say more wars have been caused by atheism than any religion. I'll even go so far as to say that the current problem with Islam is a political movement disguised as a religious movement. As for salvation, what are the differences between the Catholic and Protestant views? Be specific, don't just throw these things out and expect them to stick. As for Protestant and and Catholic hierarchy, it may interest you to know that Lutherans, who are about as Protestant as it gets, have Bishops, too. That is a very New Testament Biblical principle. Finally, there are no faiths "founded on the Bible". The Bible as a whole was written by the faithful, Jews and Christians, Islam has practically no part in it. And if you really want to get technical, the writings of the Christian church is found in the New Testament and Judaism is found in the Old Testament. You will never find a Tanakh with a NT included. Christians are for the most part non Jews, it has ever been thus.
You are welcome to believe what you wish. But your accounts of John, Polycarp, and Irenaeus are not in line with historical scholarship from the last 2000 years. You merely dismiss historical evidence.. and choose some revisionist claims from infidels.org, or something. I see no purpose in continuing this line of debate. My points stand, unrefuted. They are the historical, Christian perspective with millennia of scholarly consensus. I'll repear the point you are dismissing with prejudice: 4. The theories you suggest are speculative. There is nothing in the texts to compel such a conclusion, and they are contrary to all other written accounts that came early on. Clement, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Augustine.. none of the early writers saw any conflict in the accounts you interpret millennia later. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. These were very near to the events, and quoted extensively from ALL of the canon of nt scripture. The central teachings of Jesus have continued in an unbroken line, DESPITE the flood of lies, distortions, and propaganda that enemies of Christianity from every generation have hurled against it. Jesus was and is, the stone of stumbling and a rock of offense. Lies and phony caricatures have been hurled at the Rock, but it remains, unscathed. I maintain that the central reason for the proliferation of distortions, lies, false teachings, and heresies is spelled out in the OP: Deception This world is under the influence of a great deceiver. His goal is to kill and destroy, and to bring confusion to man so he cannot understand the redemption process, and be reconciled to God. Every man must do two things alone; he must do his own believing and his own dying. ~Martin Luther
I see that as a human thing, and not compelled by the ideology. I would observe that many divisive 'religious wars', that superficially seemed to be about doctrine, were not. They were about power, greed, and human control... as most wars are. I am proposing logical and historical accuracy. 'Christianity', has specific, historical tenets of faith. It has precise teachings from the Founder that have not changed. There may be many 'not Christianity,' worldviews out there, but they do not detract from the 'true Christianity' ideals. The existence of lies does not negate the truth. I offered this earlier: An example: Christianity= A+ B+ C+ D 'Not A'+ B+ 'not C' + D = SOMETHING, but it is not Christianity. A+ 'not B'+ 'not C' + D = something, but it is also not historical, biblical, orthodox Christianity. IOW, there exists a real, original, precise 'Christianity', that is distinguished from 'non-Christianity', however it is defined. The only ambiguity is in the fluid definitions of 'Christianity,' which has almost rendered it useless as a descriptive term. That is why i add the qualifiers, 'historical, biblical,' to it, to differentiate between the mislabeled distortions. There may be many 'non-Christianity' worldviews out there, but there is only one precise, exact, and historical, 'Christianity,' worldview. There may be many reasons for some Christians to take issue with this, or any creed or statement of faith. I would predict that very few biblically based Christians would do so. As for historical accuracy, i see no conflict. The summary in the OP is very similar to the abundant creeds and writings from the early church fathers, and the scriptures themselves. Those who oppose this basic Christian perspective seem to come from a hostile or prejudicial mindset toward historical, biblical Christianity.
This is a common perspective.. even going to the early gnostics. But the early church fathers and apologists refuted this 'spiritualizing' of Christ as a heresy. They affirmed that Jesus was a real man, and also 'God in the flesh.' 'Very God of very God,' as Irenaeus and the Nicene Creed put it. His words and mission were specific, rational, and clear. It is the work of the Deceiver to muddy and confuse, so the message is lost in ethereal mysticism. Obviously, people can, and do, believe whatever they want. But there was an Event in history.. at the fullness of time.. when a Man called Jesus was born, lived, taught, and existed as fully man, yet also claimed to be fully God. THAT is the central doctrine of Christianity. Reinterpretations, or disbelief has been a common response to this central claim of Jesus, but it remains an historical fact, and a genealogical heritage for His followers .
"Spiritual awakening", eh Could be a fancy way of saying ... yeah, I'm scared sh*tless of dying and really really hope there's something after this life. At any rate, I've had a couple 'awakenings' too ... the factual and logical kinds. And, thankfully, they took me from naïve believer to agnostic who has no choice but to lean atheist...
Judge me how you will. I don't find any possible answers for the Eternal Questions of life to be very comforting. Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying. ~Arthur C. Clarke
IMO, the Deceiver muddied up the message of christ, post death, with this idea of a jewish blood sacrifice which dealt with sin. The jewish idea of blood sacrifice lived on in christianity, but instead of animals losing their life to roll forward sin, the sacrifice of a human being was the final sacrifice, the ultimate, therefore saving humanity once and for all. I think this came from the great deceiver. And given the history of the church founded upon this principle, indeed that tree produced the bad fruit christ taught man about. A good tree would only have produced good fruit, and that is not what the RCC has a history of doing. As christ tended to say, those with ears let them ear, and those with eyes let them see. Again, IMO. At at least this view makes sense and is not filled with magic and hocus pocus. Or a non reality. The idea that a God would indulge in the killing of his Son, living in a human body is beyond absurdity. But tie that with the fear of death and the promise of everlasting life and you can sell it. And they did. That this yielded a christianity which is filled with so much evil and the work of the devil is understandable. Christians must of course turn a blind eye to what it evidences. Such is the nature of grabbing onto a belief in hopes of saving the ego.
