1. IrvingSnodgrass - May 19, 1999 - 9:39 AM PT
By popular demand, here is a focused religion thread. Let's try and keep all comments here to a discussion of the early development of Christianity.
General comments on religion can go in the Religion thread.
2. incognito - May 19, 1999 - 9:39 AM PT
hi
bye
3. theDiva - May 19, 1999 - 9:58 AM PT
Here is an interesting piece from the Catholic Encyclopedia concerning the development of Christianity.
4. HardyHarHar - May 19, 1999 - 10:18 AM PT
...and then there was light?
5. HardyHarHar - May 19, 1999 - 10:20 AM PT
Then God had diarrhea...viola! Earth and the solar system...
6. Jenerator - May 19, 1999 - 10:21 AM PT
Who's Viola?
7. jexster - May 19, 1999 - 10:47 AM PT
Thanks Irv...
Now let's talk about the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church...Jen?
8. marshame - May 19, 1999 - 10:48 AM PT
Hardy
While I suppose, technically, Christianity did begin in the Beginning, maybe we could fast forward to the time of Christ.
9. marshame - May 19, 1999 - 10:51 AM PT
Re the "church":
My vote goes for the one, truly, holy, universal, mother/father church being the body of Christ. Namely, all believers including past, present and future.
The Roman Catholic church is a man-made hierarchical organization centered in Rome with wishful links to one of Jesus' apostles through some purposeful translation of "this" as in "this rockk." When Jesus said he was building his church upon "this rock" the preceding context clearly refers to the rock of the gospel. Not that sad sack Peter.
10. incognito - May 19, 1999 - 10:55 AM PT
Peter a "sad sack?"
I'm sorry to hear him characterized in that way.
11. Jenerator - May 19, 1999 - 10:55 AM PT
Jex,
I would love to, but my lunch break is almost over. I will sneak in here after a while.
Marshame,
I would add that it was Peter's confession that Jesus is the Son of God, namely his profession of Christ as Lord, that the church (body of believers) is built upon.
12. jexster - May 19, 1999 - 10:57 AM PT
Gee Diva, I had bookmarked my copy of Karl Rahner's "Foundations of Christian Faith" as against the justified and justifiable criticism that the Catholic Encyclopedia, as impressive and useful a resource as it is, is also the last refuge of Tridentine schismatics and Mother Angelica.
But seeing as how I have cited same in defense against the Gnostic heresies of Phillip David I guess I have to live with it?
Cmboyce, HELP ME!
Father Rahner pray for us!
13. vonKreedon - May 19, 1999 - 11:00 AM PT
Marsha - An interesting interpretation and certainly a good example that the Bible is an interpreted work.
Matthew 16:17-19
17
Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
18
And I tell you that you are Peter, [3] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades [4] will not overcome it. [5]
19
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be [6] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be [7] loosed in heaven."
[3] 18 Peter means rock. (Jesus makes a pun)
14. incognito - May 19, 1999 - 11:01 AM PT
Could marshame and Jenerator please explain their positions, especially using the bible to support their claims about Peter?
Make good note of the play on words in that passage in Matthew where Jesus changes Simon's name to Peter, meaning rock, and then proceeds to discuss building his church upon this rock.
If you know Greek, please use that too.
I'm glad to see Jenerator spending her lunch hours on the really important matters!
15. stostosto - May 19, 1999 - 11:07 AM PT
I have always found Christianity silly at best. But early Christianity is a downright nuisance. Ruining your badly needed Sunday morning slumber by bambling away with huge iron bells. I am opposed.
16. justlooking - May 19, 1999 - 11:09 AM PT
In the beginning, Christians were Jews.
17. pellenilsson - May 19, 1999 - 11:13 AM PT
Yes, sto3, but remember, that when the bell tolls it tolls for thee, because no man is an island.
18. theDiva - May 19, 1999 - 11:16 AM PT
Peter a sad sack?
Marsha. Truly.
19. stostosto - May 19, 1999 - 11:19 AM PT
pelle
your answer strikes me as emphatically cryptic, leaving me dumbfounded, if not flabbergasted.
But thank you for reminding me, anyway.
20. stostosto - May 19, 1999 - 11:20 AM PT
pelle
your answer strikes me as emphatically cryptic, leaving me dumbfounded, if not flabbergasted.
But thank you for reminding me, anyway.
21. pellenilsson - May 19, 1999 - 11:35 AM PT
It is my misfortune to have to leave the Fray for a while just as this interesting thread starts. Just a few thoughts:
I think we can agree that after the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus, Christians were left without a doctrine except for fragments like the one about Peter. It is unclear whether they felt in need of one because in the early days Jesus's return was thought to be imminent.
I should clarify that by "doctrine" I provisionally mean a unified system of thought which prescribes how Christians should interpret the Bible. We may be able to arrive at a better and more precise definition later.
I am intrigued by this cite provided by vonKreedon in Message #13
"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church ..."
The word "church" has assumed a variety of meanings for us, none of which could have been familiar to Jesus and his contemporaries. I am very curious as to the word used in the original and its contemporary connotation (congregation, maybe?).
22. incognito - May 19, 1999 - 11:40 AM PT
pelle interesting comments. Unfortunately I have seen Jenerator and marshame to a lesser extent just be interested in saying what they believe but not really addressing the real meat of the matter, the details of the issue. They much rather state what they believe and then leave.
I'm hoping this time instead of just saying they don't believe Peter is the rock as mentioned there that they actually defend their interpretation of that passage.
23. vonKreedon - May 19, 1999 - 11:44 AM PT
Pelle - That is interesting, the use of the word "church". I am using the NIV version that includes many footnotes, such as the one pointing out that Peter means rock, but it offers no clues as to the meaning of church.
24. theDiva - May 19, 1999 - 11:48 AM PT
As I understand it, 'church' refers not to an organization per se, but rather to the body of believers.
25. theDiva - May 19, 1999 - 11:56 AM PT
ah, yes, here we are.....I'm using the New Jerusalem translation, which has Matthew's version of Peter's profession of faith in this way:
When Jesus came to the region of Caesra Philippi he put this question to his disciples, 'Who do people say the Son of man is?' And they said, 'Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.' 'But you,' he said, 'who do you say I am?' Then Simon Peter spoke up and said 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Jesus replied, 'Simon son of Jonah, you are a blessed man! Because it was no human agency that revealed this to you but my father in heaven. So now I say to you: you are Peter and on this rock I will build my community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it.
Interesting that the word 'community' is used.
26. pellenilsson - May 19, 1999 - 11:57 AM PT
sto3
Or mindboggled? It is John Donne (1573-1631) making the point that no human being can live completely isolated from humanity. But I would fool you if I claimed expertise of early 17th century poets/philosophers (there are other Fraysters who would not necessarily be that modest). The simple truth is that long ago I got curious about the origin of the title "For Whom the Bells Toll" (Hemingway) and then I found it out.
27. jexster - May 19, 1999 - 12:02 PM PT
"It is my misfortune to have to leave the Fray for a while
just as this interesting thread starts."
NO!
Say it ain't so Pelle!
I think you are fascinating. Contact me if you'd like at jex2@yahoo.com
28. theDiva - May 19, 1999 - 12:06 PM PT
Jex
Could you explain what you mean in your earlier post to me? You kind of lost me.
As I understand it, the Catholic Encyclopedia is a very old (as in 1920s) resource, and so perhaps those who would return the Church to pre-Vatican II days use it as a tool. Hmmmm.
29. jexster - May 19, 1999 - 12:09 PM PT
marshme..
You run into a few problems with Message #9 for in fact until the Reformation (and I am mindful of the Orthodox Schism) that is for the vast majority of the Church's History, there was ONLY what is called today "The Catholic Church". The Church, in fact, exists today in the Roman Catholic Church, the various Eastern Orthodox Churches, and the Anglican Communion.
That's quite a bit of history you have to deal with.
From my perspective, the axe was laid to the root circa Martin Luther and all that follow are Jerry Falwell[Teletubby Killer], David Koresh, 7th Day Adventists, Jim Jones[Jonestown], Baptists, Methodists, Sun Myung Moon etc.
No closer to the True Vine, and IMO farther away,than say Buddah, and the Prophet.
30. incognito - May 19, 1999 - 12:11 PM PT
"From my perspective, the axe was laid to the root circa Martin Luther and all that follow are Jerry Falwell[Teletubby Killer], David Koresh, 7th Day Adventists, Jim Jones[Jonestown], Baptists, Methodists, Sun Myung Moon etc."
A rather bleak view. And lumping Martin Luther in with Koresh and Jim Jones is almost as bad as calling the Apostle Peter a "sad sack!"
31. jexster - May 19, 1999 - 12:15 PM PT
Diva,
I quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia in a gratuitous slam at PhillipDavid in the Playpen for his article in praise of the Gnostic Heresy. The CE being a very fine, albeit very Counter-Reformation-biased resource for Catholic Truth on the Internet.
IMO much of what is contained in the CE has been superceded by subsequent scholarship and Spirit-filled truth, Vatican II. I meant that I was ready to tackle the thread based upon Karl Rahner and more modern Catholic thought than the CE.
The whole CE-Internet transcription project is the work of Mother Angelica and her ilk, whom I refer to as Tridentine schismatics when in fact they are perfectly good Catholics, especially if you pose the question to Ratzinger or to J2P2.
Am I unclear enough?
32. theDiva - May 19, 1999 - 12:17 PM PT
Jex
Nope, not at all, I'm with you now (and snickering a little besides). Thanks.
33. incognito - May 19, 1999 - 12:20 PM PT
"No closer to the True Vine, and IMO farther away,than say Buddah, and the Prophet."
Is this the opinion of Vatican II also?
34. jexster - May 19, 1999 - 12:25 PM PT
My point, I guess is this -
2 millenia ago a poor Jewish reformer lived, preached and died for a total of 3 recorded years in what was a backwater of the Roman Empire.
Today, the vast plurality of humans claim his Name as Holy.
The Church Fathers, the Early Catholic Church defined this "Jesus" for us.
Its not as if we just discovered all of the disputes and controversies that I am sure we will read of here, and many we haven't.
That's fine. The early Catholic Church dealt with all of these which makes this thread and their work so very important not only to those who profess and call themselves "Christian" but to all who do not.
35. jexster - May 19, 1999 - 12:27 PM PT
Not at all Incognito!
Just my own poor attempt at humor.
God wills all men to be saved. Baptists, Lutherans, Hindus, Hutus, and Elliot too!
36. jroth2 - May 19, 1999 - 1:08 PM PT
Well Jexster, perhaps we have the first opportunity for debate on this thread. IMHO, not being Roman Catholic, the Early History is the only truly interesting period from a viewpoint of comparative religion. I've always found the Pelagians and Montanists more interesting and provocative than the Nicean orthodoxy. I have a special abhorrence of Augustine since he was so responsible for attacking what could have been very promising versions of the Truth.
37. pellenilsson - May 19, 1999 - 1:20 PM PT
jexster
Message #27
I think you're into leg-pulling. But I've added yours to my address book. Just in case.
38. incognito - May 19, 1999 - 1:23 PM PT
jroth2
"I've always found the
Pelagians and Montanists more interesting and provocative
than the Nicean orthodoxy. I have a special abhorrence of
Augustine since he was so responsible for attacking what
could have been very promising versions of the Truth."
There are two separate issues here, both of which I'd be interested in hearing your angle on.
What can be more provacative than God becoming man (Nicaea)?
And what is it about Augustine that you think he botched, theology wise?
39. Ronski - May 19, 1999 - 1:23 PM PT
Lutherans trace their origin to Rome much the same way as the Anglican Communion does.
40. jroth2 - May 19, 1999 - 1:37 PM PT
Incognito,
I'm running 3 different 'conversations' now so I won't be able to give your response its due. Briefly, I've always been uncomfortable with Original Sin. What little we know of Pelagius comes from Augustine's attacks on him. It seems Pelagius had a 'doctrine' of Original Virue that Augustine found heretical. There is probably a good balance point somewhere between the positions, but Augustine was rather polemical and lacking in tolerance. I regret that some of that attitude persisted through much of Church history.
41. AzureNW - May 19, 1999 - 1:52 PM PT
Is Christianity in 1530 AD considered "early" or "contemporary?" It makes for absolutely terrible public relations for Christians either way. The conquistadors were unbelievable monsters by any standard in the history or even the pre-history of the world, and they were pure Christian to the core. I'm enjoying being immersed in reading about them at the moment, but they are incredibly revolting human beings. It's a travesty and an insult to humanity that they are celebrated as cultural heros, "discoverers," "explorers," ha.
I just love it when Irving creates a thread I can relieve myself on for fun like this one.
42. pellenilsson - May 19, 1999 - 2:01 PM PT
Azure
In my opinion Early Christianity ends somewhere around 500 A.D although some would like to stretch that to 800 A.D. The measuring stick is when the Catholic doctrine has solidified.
43. pellenilsson - May 19, 1999 - 2:05 PM PT
jexster and incognito
You have both referred to Vatican II. By no stretch of imaginations can Vatican II be regarded as "Early Christianity".
44. jexster - May 19, 1999 - 2:07 PM PT
Pelle -
Why are U leaving us?
Remember Poltava and Dominus Vobiscum!
45. AzureNW - May 19, 1999 - 2:13 PM PT
pellenilsson -
Can you tell me briefly some of the events and personalities that were important to Christianity in the 16th century? Thanks.
46. Jenerator - May 19, 1999 - 2:17 PM PT
The Reformation is a biggie. (Erasmus, Luther, Calvin)
47. pellenilsson - May 19, 1999 - 2:29 PM PT
jexster
Message #44
I don't read you jexster, I don't read you at all unless you are mocking me. I'm going on a one week business trip to Amman, Jordan. I have posted that info somewhere, I don't remember where, but in a thread you visit.
48. AzureNW - May 19, 1999 - 2:30 PM PT
The Christian society of the 16th century that produced the conquistadors could not have been enlightened or evolved in any sense of the word. I can't imagine that any opinions they held on spiritual or ethical matters would be considered worthwhile now as an subject of study except as an embarassing curiosity of early European culture.
49. pellenilsson - May 19, 1999 - 2:32 PM PT
jen
I guess yours is in reponse to Azures #45 which means a can relieve myself from it (or on it?)
50. Jenerator - May 19, 1999 - 2:33 PM PT
Apologies to all for calling Peter a sad sack. My point was this: Peter was a loud, quick-to-speak fisherman, who Jesus had to chastise more than once ("get thee behind me Satan" was directed at Peter, let us not forget.) But Peter was in the inner circle of Jesus' closest disciples with John and James. Obviously, Jesus loved Peter, as evidenced by his tender forgiveness of him for denying him during Jesus' trial. So contrast this burly, all-too-human follower of Jesus, who, tradition has it, asked to be crucified upside down because he was not worthy to be crucified upright with Jesus. Contrast this gentle giant of an apostle with the so-called apostolic succession of popes. I specifically refer to the popes who had people approach them on hand and knee to kiss the toe of the "Holy Father". Hardly the servant image that Jesus projected, is it. And hardly the way Peter conducted himself, either.
Now for the rock issue. I don't know Greek and I don't have a Greek Bible, but what I have heard is this: Jesus called Peter "Petros", which would best be translated in English as Rockie. You know, a nick name. But when he said "upon this rock I will build my church" he used the word "petra" meaning rock. This also uses the same Greek as used in the Sermon on the Mount to describe what the foundation of life should be (Matt 7:24-27.) If someone who knows Greek and has a Greek Bible could ascertain whether or not this is correct, that would be great.
Incognito
I will try and stick around, but my work has an annoying way of interrupting my fraying.
51. marshame - May 19, 1999 - 2:35 PM PT
Oops, that last post was from me. Jenerator was using my computer during her lunch hour and changed the user name.
52. incognito - May 19, 1999 - 2:39 PM PT
jroth Message #40
Thanks for the quick response! The discussion over original sin IS a good one to get into I think but I'll wait for you to have more time on it. I would be quite willingly to attack the notion though that Pelagius' views on sin and human nature were biblical! :)
53. incognito - May 19, 1999 - 2:41 PM PT
"Jesus
called Peter "Petros", which would best be translated in
English as Rockie. You know, a nick name. But when he
said "upon this rock I will build my church" he used the
word "petra" meaning rock. This also uses the same
Greek as used in the Sermon on the Mount to describe
what the foundation of life should be (Matt 7:24-27.)"
A very interesting answer, and off the top of your head Jenerator, um, marshame?!
If your comments about the Greek there are true, a very interesting thing to consider!
54. cmboyce - May 19, 1999 - 2:44 PM PT
Message #12
Jexter,
I only just got here, and I have to leave before I will even have read all these posts (this got off to a nice fast start, I see), but to replace that post-Tridentine antique, see my link to the New Jerome in the Religion thread.
55. vonKreedon - May 19, 1999 - 2:47 PM PT
Marsha's interpretation is interesting more in the light it shines on the fact that the Bible (and any religious/ideological text) *must* be interpreted than in attacking the initial basis of apostolic succession.
56. vonKreedon - May 19, 1999 - 2:49 PM PT
Personally it is little human things like Jesus the punster, "Simon, I'm going to call you Rocky, and on this rock I'm going to base my religion."(image of Jesus knocking on Peter's forehead), that I find really appealing in the Bible.
57. marshame - May 19, 1999 - 2:52 PM PT
VonK
What it requires is to go back to the original Greek. Where is PE when we need him?? And it should not come as a shock to you that the reading of words always requires interpretation.
Also VK, I note that you gave the pat RCC view of Peter as the holder of the keys to the kingdom, which the RCC later used to concoct indulgences, etc. So, are you basically a Roman Catholic turned agnostic?
58. incognito - May 19, 1999 - 2:54 PM PT
"Marsha's interpretation is interesting more in the light it
shines on the fact that the Bible (and any
religious/ideological text) *must* be interpreted than in
attacking the initial basis of apostolic succession."
Nothing earth-shattering about that! The thing to remember though is that competing interpretations of a static text like the bible cannot all be correct. If jenerator/marshame's answer is correct, then, it works against the standard Catholic notion of that passage.
59. marshame - May 19, 1999 - 3:04 PM PT
Which is why we had this thing called the Protestant Reformation, by golly!
60. incognito - May 19, 1999 - 3:06 PM PT
Watch out marshame! If you mention anything not properly termed "early Christianity" pellenilsson is liable to jump all over you for it!
61. vonKreedon - May 19, 1999 - 3:11 PM PT
If there is "Nothing earth-shattering.."(Cog) and "...it should not come as a shock to you that the reading of words always requires interpretation." (Marsha) then my question is how is it that you can have no doubt about the veracity of your view of God, since this comes from this text that you are blithely interpreting?
Marsha - Yes, I attended Catholic Catechism as a child.
62. incognito - May 19, 1999 - 3:15 PM PT
whose blithly interpreting it?
The point is, as a static text in a dead language, the meaning in the text is petrafied as it were. If marshame's answer is correct then such an interpretation of that text as performed by the RCC seems to have some weaknesses to it. In other words there is no question that such a text must be interpretated; but there is right and wrong interpretation possible, wouldn't you say?
I'm going to assume the "no doubt" bit was for marshame and not for me.
63. marshame - May 19, 1999 - 3:15 PM PT
Von K
Love the image of Jesus knocking Peter in the noggin while bestowing him with the Keys! That Jesus, what a kidder!
Blithely?? As in, gayly and carefreely?
Someone, anyone, who knows anything about Greek, please help us out here! Where is VicKuligin when we need him?
VonK
Why is it that it seems most atheists/agnostics posting here were exposed to the Roman Catholic Church as children?
64. vonKreedon - May 19, 1999 - 3:17 PM PT
Because the Jesuits made the mistake of inculcating critical reasoning along with catechism?
65. marshame - May 19, 1999 - 3:18 PM PT
Oh yeah, the Jesuits. Weren't they formed to fight the Protestant Reformation?
66. incognito - May 19, 1999 - 3:18 PM PT
"Why is it that it seems most atheists/agnostics posting here
were exposed to the Roman Catholic Church as children?"
Is this really true? That would make for an interesting study and discussion!
But as this is the EARLY Christianity thread, we can't discuss the religious experiences of people NOW living! Move it to the OTHER religion thread!
67. vonKreedon - May 19, 1999 - 3:19 PM PT
Blithely may be less correct than unreflectively.
68. incognito - May 19, 1999 - 3:19 PM PT
"Give me the first seven years of a person's life and he will be a Roman Catholic for life."
a quote from the Jesuits
69. marshame - May 19, 1999 - 3:19 PM PT
Better unreflectively than genuflectively.
70. incognito - May 19, 1999 - 3:20 PM PT
and as the Jesuits are from the Reformation that is hands off too
71. marshame - May 19, 1999 - 3:21 PM PT
Incognito
You are a party pooper.
72. incognito - May 19, 1999 - 3:22 PM PT
marshame I'm just trying to guard you from the grief that will inevitably ensue when someone far meaner and with far more power tells you that we are off-topic!
73. marshame - May 19, 1999 - 3:24 PM PT
incog
I am steeled against the grief regularly dished to me in this thread. But thanks for the noble gesture.
But I have to go now, sorry!
74. phillipdavid - May 19, 1999 - 5:07 PM PT
marshame
Message #50
"Jesus
called Peter "Petros", which would best be translated in
English as Rockie. You know, a nick name. But when he
said "upon this rock I will build my church" he used the
word "petra" meaning rock. This also uses the same
Greek as used in the Sermon on the Mount to describe
what the foundation of life should be (Matt 7:24-27.)"
I looked up the Greek in Strong's Concordnace. Petra means:
1) a rock, cliff or ledge
1a) a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground
1b) a rock, a large stone
1c) metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul
Some other passages that use the same word:
1Cr 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
Luk 8:13 They on the rock [are they], which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.
75. phillipdavid - May 19, 1999 - 5:24 PM PT
I stand with what jroth said in his Message #36. I too have always had a fondness for the Pelagian view, and a certain dislike of Augustine's _theory_ of Original Sin.
incognito in Message #38 asks:
"And what is it about Augustine that you think he botched,
theology wise?"
Here is my answer, A Diatribe Against Augustine's Theory of Original Sin.
76. incognito - May 19, 1999 - 7:33 PM PT
A document that starts with this
"St. Augustine was a neurotic old man who propounded insidious ideas that need to be scrubbed clean once and for all."
shouldn't be missed!
Just a quick question about this line:
"Systematically, throughout the first five centuries, the image of Jesus and the message of Christ was changed to suit the Roman emperors and the neurotic guilt-complexes of Augustine."
first five centuries = 500 years
Augy born 354, died 430
It would be difficult to assert that Christian doctrine before, say, 380, had much at all to do with the neurosis of Augustine. That leaves us 3 and a half centuries left!
What Roman emperors did you have in mind? None of them before Constantine (~313) were Christians. So now we have nearly 3 centuries after the death of Christ where you give us no reasonable explanation for the development of Christian theology.
77. cmboyce - May 19, 1999 - 9:20 PM PT
FWIW: the notes to the Oxford Annotated Bible (whose text is the RSV) says of Matt 16.18 ("And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church..."), after running through the Greek Petros/petra pun that someone (marshame?) dilineated above, goes on: "Palestinian Aramaic, which Jesus usually spoke, used the same word for both proper name and common noun: 'You are _Kepha_ [Cephas; cf 1Cor.15.5; Gal.2.9 (where Peter is referred to as Cephas)] and on this rock [kepha] I will build..." For the view that all the apostles form the foundation of the church, see Eph.2.20; Rev.21.14"
Eph.2.19-20: "So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone."
Rev.21.14: "And the wall of the city had twelve foundatioins, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."
Also, on the same text, Young's Concordance has the "church" in that verse as translating the Greek _ekklesia_ (I lack the diacriticals), meaning (their translation) 'that which is called out'. This suggests that Christ may have said something like, "You are the rock on which I will build my teaching [or: my doctrines]. This chimes well, I think, with Eph.2.20, where (although Paul is not expressly talking about the Church, or the church, or the teachings) he refers to *something* as built on the foundations, not of the apostles alone, but on them and Jesus, with the latter the most important
78. cmboyce - May 19, 1999 - 9:21 PM PT
ingredient. That *something*, in the absence of an actual existing hierarchical structure in Paul's lifetime must be the teachings &/or the Christians who have adopted them as their guide.
The Rev. cite... well, it's just Revelations. IMO, Revelations is a useless text for anything but sheer inspiration. It is not an account of Christianity, nor is it a presentation of doctrine. It is a work of art, and we use it here with as much pertinance as we would use the work of Jackson Pollack in studying the Roosevelt administration.
79. aldavies - May 19, 1999 - 10:42 PM PT
The rock that Christ was referring to was not Peter himself but the statement that he made regarding Christ being the son of God.Christ is the rock and the chief cornerstone.The head of the Church the way the truth and the life.
80. cmboyce - May 19, 1999 - 10:50 PM PT
Message #79
That's sounds plausible, Al. Just stress the "this".
But this byplay is really *before* Early Christianty, if by that we mean the development of the religion in the world. What Paul et al (and mostly Paul, insofar as canon speaks) thought of it is more important than our readings.
81. pellenilsson - May 20, 1999 - 12:00 AM PT
Many good posts.
What seems to be clear is that Jesus left his early disciples with teachings but not with a doctrine. Recall also that the teachings were not written down until later. I see the evolution of doctrine in three phases.
1. Paul's work to transform Christianity from a Jewish sect to a universal religion.
2. The debate leading up to the Council of Nicea in 325 and the decisions taken there.
3. The suppression or marginalisation of the various heresies that arose after Nicea.
I really hate being away for the next seven days but it cannot be helped. Maybe I can sneak access from somebody.
82. Jenerator - May 20, 1999 - 8:30 AM PT
Aldavies,
Agreed, see also Message #11.
83. incognito - May 20, 1999 - 9:21 AM PT
Repeating it over and over again doesn't make it right. You'll have to actually make a reasoned defense of that interpretation aldavies and Jenerator before you will convince us that the Catholic church is dead wrong on the issue.
84. jroth2 - May 20, 1999 - 10:20 AM PT
Perhaps I missed a relevant early post, but it seems we haven't defined the historical period which constitutes "Early Christianity". It would, of course, be convenient and orthodox to end the period with either the Nicean Council/Creed or the death of Augustine. I argue for a longer period, say to 550 AC, to take account of the very vigorous debate between the Eastern and Western Churches on the issues of 'filioque' and other Christological controversies. There is also an argument to be made for including the Council of Chalcedon since its 'consensus' survived, at least in part, through the present day.
Of course any arbitrary date will cut across someone's area of interest. Perhaps others have a suggestion?
85. incognito - May 20, 1999 - 10:32 AM PT
I would argue for going to up the start of Pope Gregory the Great's term, 590. He is usually considered the "first" pope and the first of the Medieval Period.
86. theDiva - May 20, 1999 - 11:06 AM PT
Concerning an earlier discussion about Peter....I went surfing and found some interesting material from 'Catholic Answers':
In order to understand the passage, We must get behind the Greek to the Aramaic the language Jesus and the apostles and all the Jews in Palestine spoke. Many if not most of them knew Greek, of course, because Greek was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean world. It was the language of culture and commerce, and most of the books of the New Testament were written in it because they were written not just for Christians in Palestine, but for Christians in places such as Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, places where Aramaic wasn't the spoken language. Matthew's Gospel was written by him in Aramaic or Hebrew--we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea--but it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself. In any case the Aramaic/Hebrew original is lost (as are all the originals of the New Testament books), so all we have today is the Greek.
We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the Cross, 'Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?' That isn't Greek; it's Aramaic, and it means, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'
In Paul's epistles--four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians--we have the Aramaic form of Simon's new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn't Greek. That's a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (also rendered as Kephas). And what does Kepha mean? It means a large, massive stone, the same as petra. (It doesn't mean a little stone or a pebble--the Aramaic word for that is evna.) What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: 'You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.'
(more)
87. theDiva - May 20, 1999 - 11:08 AM PT
(continued)
When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn't contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which give the verse this way: 'You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.'
Now, if kepha means the same as petra, why don't we read in the Greek, 'You are Petra, and on this petra I will build my Church'? Why, for Simon's new name, does Matthew use a Greek word, Petros, which means something quite different from petra?
Basically, Matthew had no choice. Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings. You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can't use it as Simon's new name, because you can't give a man a feminine name--at least back then you couldn't. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.
Now, that's an imperfect rendering of the Aramaic; you lose part of the play on words. (In English, where we have 'Peter' and 'rock,' you lose all of it.) But that's the best you can do in Greek.
Now, if Matthew wanted to say that Simon was a small stone, he would have used the common Greek word for small stone, lithos. We would expect Matthew 16:18 to read, 'You are Lithos, and on this petra I will build my church.' But it doesn't read that way precisely because Matthew was trying to convey the play on words shown so clearly in the Aramaic.
Pretty interesting.
88. theDiva - May 20, 1999 - 11:22 AM PT
This is completely off-topic, but:
“Why is it that it seems most atheists/agnostics posting here were exposed to the Roman Catholic Church as children?”
Marsha, I know you posted this question to vonK, but I'd like to give my take on it as someone who was reared in the RCC, left for many years, and then returned.
VonK's remark wrt critical reasoning is very close to the mark. The Dominicans taught us to question what we were taught so that we could understand our faith and ‘be prepared to give reason for the hope' that lay within us. That very training, combined with other forces, sent me and my immature mind away from the RCC…..Catholicism is not an easy faith to follow when you're a kid and you feel like doing whatever feels good……but I will tell you this.
God had some trials in store for me which made me question my very existence. I searched for answers and comfort in many different ways and places; I couldn't find anything which resonated with me. Though I even attended a Protestant church for a time, and was heavily recruited by an evangelical, I could not find solace in a way of thinking which included attacking others beliefs in the name of God. The RCC won me back, intellectually and emotionally, with its loving acceptance – and it really and truly is there, if one takes the time to look closely at the Church as the people who are in it, not merely the hierarchy. The hierarchy put me off for many years, as it does most people. But going to church every week, meeting and getting to know people, both lay and religious, who *lived their faith* and were really and truly the face of Jesus Christ to me….I will never, ever fully be able to put into words what that felt like, what that feels like, and what it means to me.
89. marshame - May 20, 1999 - 11:32 AM PT
Diva
Let's say, for the purposes of this discussion, that everything you have to say is correct about Peter and the Aramaic vs. Greek word for rock, etc. That still does not refute the interpretation that Jesus was recognizing Peter's confession of him as Lord. And THAT, namely that confession, is the rock upon which Christ's church was to be built. Again I refer you to Jesus' previous use of the rock as the analogy for a firm foundation for one's life, namely faith in God.
If Jesus had intended for everyone to understand that he was annointing Peter as the first successor or vicar of Christ, wouldn't you expect that there would be something to that effect in the other gospels, most notably Mark? Yet there is no other reference to this in the Bible. cmboyce points out some verses that can be understood to mean that the apostles as a group are the pillar or foundation, but no where is Peter singled out.
And look at Peter's own actions in the book of Acts. In Chapter 10 verse 25-26, Cornelius fell at Peter's feet and began to worship him, but Peter told him "Stand up. I too am just a man." How do we get from this humble apostle to popes (supposedly Peter's successors) riding around on the shoulders of other men, requiring people to kiss their feet?
Finally, we cannot ignore the frequent use of the word rock in the old and new testaments to refer to the solid foundation of faith in God. As I previously referenced, Jesus himself closed the sermon on the mount with the analogy that the man who built his house upon the rock would never be moved, contrasted with the man who built his house upon the sand. cmboyce had some other references, as well. Look at Psalm 144, for example, where David cries "Blessed by the Lord my rock."
90. rustlerpike - May 20, 1999 - 11:39 AM PT
Jeez, I've always wondered about "Eli, eli, lama sabachtani". That could pass for Hebrew (a very close relative of Aramaic), except for the root s-b-ch which I can't recognize.
(...)
OK, I've looked it up in my Hebrew New Testament. The root is sh-v-k, and should be pronounced "shvaktani". sh-v-k exists in Hebrew as well, though it is uncommon. Mostly, it appears in the idiom *shavak khaim*, lit. "left life", meaning "died".
I wonder how much of a heretic Jesus was, as far as Jewish religion was concerned. Insofar as he did not tell his disciples to break the rules of Judaism, there was nothing un-Jewish in what he taught, I think. The bit about summing up the Torah with the commandment "love thy neighbor" is very Jewish, and I think Hillel had a similar teaching. If Jesus hadn't been seen as such a a threat, perhaps he would have been remembered as one of our great sages.
91. theDiva - May 20, 1999 - 11:39 AM PT
Again, from Catholic Answers:
"There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes it was only "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24, Mark 10:28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).
His preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as Rock (John 1:42)."
92. marshame - May 20, 1999 - 11:44 AM PT
Diva
Re your message #88. Thank you for sharing that. I certainly can relate, as I also left the church of my upbringing and returned after a long, prodigal absense. I know that there are real Christians in the church and out of the church (protestant, catholic or otherwise). Everyone who goes to a church is not necessarily a Christian and Christianity is not limited to those with perfect attendence pins. So I appreciate and am glad for your spiritual journey.
I am glad that you have found acceptance in your local parish, and I'm sorry that you found a spirit of attack where ever it was that you were before. Obviously, my experience has been different. But we are in a discussion thread on religion, and some of the things we are talking about have divided Christians for centuries. In fact, I don't think any one of us has come up with an argument that hasn't been made many times before. So I hope you do not think I am attacking you or other Catholics when I challenge Roman Catholic dogma and history. I am bringing to the fray my knowledge and experience and questions and areas of uncertainty and concern, just as I expect you are.
93. theDiva - May 20, 1999 - 11:44 AM PT
RP
Indeed, I was taught most emphatically that Jesus was an observant Jew. In addition, there is a strong element of Judaism, I feel, that runs through Catholicism. The connection has always fascinated me. When I attended my first Seder, it was new but yet very familiar.
94. vonKreedon - May 20, 1999 - 11:45 AM PT
Marsha - Your objection to the interpretation of Peter the Rock seems to be based at least as much on your distaste for the behavior of Popes as interpretation of the Bible; you are starting from the position that the Pope is (or more accurately, has often been) un-Christian in behavior and then reasoning back to an interpretation of Matthew.
95. incognito - May 20, 1999 - 11:45 AM PT
Diva's posts from the RCC source are interesting but I don't see how we can ever be sure what the exact phraseology was in the Aramaic used by Jesus since we don't have it, so to build an argument upon it would be weak at best.
marshame makes some good counter-arguments, but this one isn't the best:
"If Jesus had intended for everyone to understand that he was annointing Peter as the first successor or vicar of Christ, wouldn't you expect that there would be something to that effect in the other gospels, most notably Mark?"
An argument from silence isn't always that good, although I suppose it is telling that nowhere else do we have anything that clearly states Peter is the "vicar of Christ." But there are literally tons of things the bible doesn't address.
96. incognito - May 20, 1999 - 11:47 AM PT
yes I also don't think that pointing to the misbehavior of the popes is a worthwhile argument against the statement *Jesus* made in Matt. But it CAN be a good argument against the Catholic notion of the Pope as infallible and all the subsequent dogma surrounding the pope's office.
97. theDiva - May 20, 1999 - 11:49 AM PT
Marsha
No, I know you're not attacking me.....but my experiences here with Christian churches other than the RCC were very unsettling. Not a good thing for someone who is sincerely seeking answers. And, I realize fully that not all of the 'separated sects' (she said, winking) and their members are like that.
And you're totally correct, we're not breaking new ground here. It's good exercise for me, though, because I have to understand what it is I'm committing myself to.
98. incognito - May 20, 1999 - 11:52 AM PT
Further, marshame's argument about the "rock" being used so much more frequently in the bible to refer to Jesus or the proclamation that he is the Christ is a very compelling argument in my opinion.
Still the word order in the Matt passage is tough to deal with. "upon this rock" comes immediately after Jesus remaining Simon to Peter.
Could there be some compromise position in all of this, something between the standard RCC position and the answer marshame is giving? Because right after the declaration by Jesus, he gives Peter the keys and talks about binding and loosing, clearly language of authority.
Could the statement to Peter as the rock JUST refer then to the apostles but not be carried on to anybody outside that group of men?
99. marshame - May 20, 1999 - 11:55 AM PT
Von K
The papacy as the uninterupted apostolic succession from Peter, plus the power of the papacy to command tribute and create indulgences, and all manner of other rights and powers all stem from these verses: Matthew 16:17-19. To support these Roman Catholic traditions/teachings then, Jesus *must* mean that upon *Peter*, Jesus is building his church, and to *Peter* he is giving the keys to the kingdom.
100. incognito - May 20, 1999 - 11:55 AM PT
One last thought. Doesn't it say somewhere in the NT that the church is built "on the foundation of the prophets and apostles?"
Peter, as representative of the apostles, may very well be that rock upon which the church is built.
But to carry this further and say that ALL subsequent bishops of Rome now are also that rock would be carrying it too far.
And as for marshame's interpretation, it may not be solid in this passage, but it doesn't negate the numerous other passages which clearly relate Jesus as the rock of the faith.