|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Superiority of the 'Protestant Canon'? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
I always have thought of SPIRIT as something of a non-flesh/blood type of body. Example : 1 Enoch (Ethiopian Enoch ) says that the souls in bodies of the offspring of the sons of god (angels ) , born from human females, became evil spirits after they were killed in the flood.
Jesus was perhaps raised bodily so this complicates matters. But there was the first three days after the cross death. I Peter says that he went to Hell to talk to the angel characters of Genesis 6 that impregnated the human females. Even if one holds the flesh body resurrection view, he would have been a spirit for the first 3 days. 1 Corinthians 15 called Jesus the "last Adam" and said that he became a quickened spirit. Romans was written by the same author - Paul himself. To Phat and Faith- Am I understanding that the Holy Spirit chronologically didn't exist , according to your reasoning, as a separate entity until Jesus Christ died? Or is this Romans 8:9 issue just an unusual word phrase? I would perhaps be inclined to think that Paul felt that Jesus was still alive but in a spirit body. I don't think he felt that the Holy Spirit was the same thing as Jesus Christ (whether when he was alive or after the cross ). I am able to allow for a rare terminology use in Romans 8:9 for the Holy Spirit, but Paul would, in that case, then not consider it as Jesus. These comments (Phat and Faith ) don't sound like orthodox Trinity interpretations. I'm not sure though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
I was questioning the idea that the spirit of Christ was the same exact thing as the Holy Spirit.
I was thinking that the Spirit of God might be the same thing as the Holy Spirit in the Romans 8:9 Let us assume that Luke (and John ) are not simply a later response to the early Christian view of a spiritual, as opposed to flesh body resurrection ( and the Gospel of Luke might have misunderstood the concept of spiritual bodies anyway - who says that the spirit bodies can't be touched? ) . The previous ( to Jesus ) existing Holy Spirit is the exact same spirit as Christ then? Possibly what Paul felt, I will admit. Then when Jesus died, I Corinthians says that he became a spirit. Chapter 15. The First Man and Last Man is an interesting thing. I guess the problem I have is that you & Phat blurred the difference between a very specific Holy Spirit and a very specific Christ. I admit that Paul did not have a clearly defined Holy Spirit at this time ( or at least not something detectable in his extant writings ). I don't feel that you have actually ironed out the massive wrinkles in the response above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
I am going to assume that you have forgotten about my main question (somewhere along the way during your last post ).
It was about how you can justify that Paul was referring to the Holy Spirit as the "spirit of Christ". I just don't think we need to demand a mass conversion of the entire planet before we try to understand what Paul is talking about. We don't even need to see a total eclipse either. Can we get back to the issue, please?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
I'm not at all convinced that your interpretation of Romans 8:9 would have been considered anything other than a type of heresy that considered God to have 3 separate modes or offices. Like a person being a son to his father. A father to his father's grandson ( his son ). And a boss to his workers. A holy man type of mode if he is a preacher.
You are interpreting the Holy Spirit as a description. Not as a distinct, separate and eternal entity. The orthodox Trinity interpretation has 3 separate and clearly defined entities. (I admit that Paul long predated the orthodox interpretation ) Do you have other scripture that matches this interpretation of Paul you have presented?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
The Coptic Church is just a 4th century Constantine Nicea offshoot. It isn't based on the beliefs of some older Christian community. It might as well be considered another European "Christian" religion.
The Syrian churches ended up all accepting the Gospel of John (and that was despite the general rejection of the writings attributed to the "John" that is attached to so many books in the Bible ). Even the Ethiopian churches are offshoots of the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic Church ilk. The Ethiopian churches did gain independence early enough from the "Christian" powers (above) that they were able to get some pre Roman Catholic features maintained in what is otherwise another Roman Catholic offshoot. Pork isn't eaten and the cannon is larger. The Book of Enoch is extant in Ethiopia and this great exception to the rest of the "Christian" world , when combined with the near total ignorance of the Book of Enoch issue, is a fact that prevents me from seeing organized religion as anything but a mass brain washing machine. (it isn't like the Book of Enoch is just any book ) Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
What about the Coptic Church?
So is this the mythic pre-Roman Catholic , "original Baptist church" ? The Coptic Church eats pork, while the 1st and 2nd century Egyptian Christians were vegetarian. Where is this pre Luther Southern Baptist church Faith? Your head. EDIT --- I should point out that the Orthodox & Catholics & Southern Baptists ( and Protestants of all stripes ) are all the same post 80/100 AD thing. Late and post Apostolic. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
I assume that is your favorite explanation for the New Testament cannon being "inspired" by God and not "Roman Catholic or Orthodox "
(capital C Catholic means Roman Catholic not simply catholic/universal just like capital O Orthodox means Eastern Orthodox which was the early European "pre Catholic Church " brand of what is still essentially the same thing.) (I call it all Catholic but Faith considers the slightest variations of the European pre Catholic Christians as BOTH "Apostolic" and somehow different from the later Roman Catholic Church. ) These (pre Catholic Church ) Greek "orthodox" Christians are all Faith has, right Faith? Any chance you can show a Semitic group or 2 from pre AD to make your case? NOW THE CANNON I think of the fact that Aristotle established the concept of Cannon and the specific idea of neither adding to or subtracting from. It is noteworthy that Irenaeus was the first to mention four Gospels and he frequently said "No more, no less " while Aristotle said "neither add nor take away " was a proverbial expression. Justin Martyr might have referenced the Gospel of John in a few places. I Apology 61.4 draws on John 3:3-5 and Dialogue 88.7 on John 1:19-20 This makes 150 AD the most early reference to Gospel John but not by name. This makes 180 the earliest known cannon if you want to read into Irenaeus. Look at archaeological evidence for the codex and 4 Gospels. In 1933 F G Kenyon edited the recent P45 discovery which had the four Gospels and Acts. It was dated 200 to 250 AD Some say that the 175 to 225 P75 might have had all four Gospels T C Skeat also has shown that P64 + P67 + P4 are from the same single quire codex which may date from the late 2nd century. All four Gospels there but not before 150 AD We need to understand that the Gospel Harmonies with John all are after 150 AD too. No evidence at all from archaeology or scholarship for anything before 150 at the earliest. The pre 150 Gospel Harmonies are very telling evidence that destroys the Fundi claims of an early fourfold Gospel Cannon. The pre 150 Gospel harmonies lack the Gospel of John but contain the 3 Synoptic Gospels. The early ones are from Jewish Christian communities too. The harmonies aren't the worst problem (perhaps ) for fundi Christians. Look at the c 110 Bishop of Smyrna, Polycarp. He quoted scripture in his writings. And the Bishop of Smyrna was a proficient quoter of the New Testament books but showed no knowledge of the Gospel of John. The same 2ND century apologists that offered the early mentions of John and the (possible ) fourfold Gospel Cannon also said (by later reports of their writings ) that Polycarp was a disciple of John. So much for the Holy Cannon with the Gospel of John! And shouldn't we ask why Syriac Aramaic Cannons reflected a deep suspicion of books attributed to John. Like Revelation. Nevermind the Hebrew Ebionites and Nazarene churches.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
You can't back up your claims, so you say you aren't interested. You have no proof that the early Nicean church of the 4th century matches up with the earliest Christianity. You know that the evidence shows that it was rather different from the picture you like to draw.
You are forced to do a yo-yo like detour around the Roman Catholic Church, where you state that the Roman Empire was part of the Holy Spirit inspired cannon for a while (during the formative 4th century cannon period and the well-known "Holy" deliberations ) , then went bad (in the "7th century" or so you have been farting out lately ) for a spell, then magically the Holy Spirit appeared around 1500 AD in Europe. You are high on claims BUT then you run when presented with semi-specific historic evidence (as I have presented from time to time ). People are ever so slightly understanding the historic role that the 4th century Roman Empire played in shaping your preferred brand of "Christianity", and be advised that I am talking about the general population of the United States. You can do the hit&run tactic (even on the much more informed EVC site ) but many are catching on to what happened at the important stages of the last 2 millennia.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
So did the Holy Spirit inspired era of the Roman Empire end before 606 AD?
Did it end after the Cannon closing in 397 AD? Is this an unfair question?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
So the canon isn't closed?
I thought you said that the Holy Spirit guided the book selection process and the ultimate canon. How about if you give your own history about how the Bible came to be ( I mean the Greek and Hebrew books and I am more interested in the Greek New Testament collection and canon ) and I am not at all talking about the English translation which is a late issue. I am wondering how I can even begin to understand what you just said (and I mean it when I say it ). I expected you to say that the Roman Empire didn't control the councils or Bishops (not that I can do anything but disagree strongly, based on the historic record of things ), but now I am totally lost. I also expected that you would say that there was a canon already completed in the 2nd century ( and then say that the second century archaeological evidence has lists that are similar to the 397 completion ). In the past, you have said that the Roman Empire developed into the Catholic Church. You said it was a church extension of an Empire. You agree with what I just recalled? Care to explain it anyway?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2
|
There is the early Christian years (pre Constantine) and then the early Christian Roman Empire years ( which includes the Council of Nicea and the canon formation process during the fourth century) .
The problem with what I have seen (over the years of observing your posts) is that you do indeed consider the early Christian Roman Empire years as part of the Holy inspired part of Christian history. Your (theological) posts clearly have presented that view. You say that 606 AD was different enough from 325 (the Council of Nicea year of the Roman Empire ) that you can see a Roman Catholic Church in the former while the latter is just small "c" catholic and inspired by the Holy Spirit. Perhaps you could tell us which Church Councils were inspired by the Holy Spirit and which were simply Roman Catholic Church councils. It makes alot of the difference when we are going to throw (Catholic)labels around on the one hand and "Spirit inspired" descriptions on the other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
It is dated to just before or after Irenaeus.
Does this list count? What about Marcion? His denomination had its own churches all over the Roman Empire. Anybody want to comment on the 2nd century possibilities? Could there have been an unknown committee of canon? In the 100s AD?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
Show the list from the Latin text (Latin, right? ) that is in the title of our posts.
Then explain how it does support your argument (it won't be the biggest deal since it is broken off if I remember ).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: Well, it also has to do with the church order of Paul in his authentic epistles verses the forged Pastoral Epistles system (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and after. Let us start with Clement of Rome. from Wikipedia.
quote: It was written about the same time as the Pastoral Epistles. Here is Oxford scholarship
quote: Here is a good work that can be read online
quote: It has to do with the church order as much as anything. Clement is venerated by protestants too. Here is Wikipedia.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
I feel that the early church fathers that are extant will be quite devoted to the Primacy of Peter (Hegesippius and Clement of Alexandria will be exceptions to the rule ), since James looms large in the early centuries.
The same Irenaeus that is big on Peter being the Bishop of Rome is the same one who said John authored the fourth Gospel and also said that Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, was a disciple of his. I should caution that I get Irenaeus and his dittohead Tertullian confused easily. Papias was the first to say Peter went to Rome. The tradition is fairly early considering Papias was born in the first century and was the Bishop of Hieropolis as early as 100 AD I think. What to think of the office of Bishop is another thing. Was Peter ever a Bishop ( whatever it meant ) ? The Roman church was ideological as far back as the late 1st century and it seems like it was willing to make things up. But the Christian communities of the late first and early second century got to write books in the name of Apostles. He who writes the rules gets to make the rules. The canon is the rule. Was there an unrecorded (in extant writings from the 2nd century ) canon from the Roman church? Or from those in its orbit ? We can only speculate.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024