Toto

Technically on a theological basis, the Anglicans / Episcopalians are not Protestants. (Sociologically they are included as Protestants - WASPs - in the US.) They do not hold to sola scriptura.

Clivedurdle

I am now extremely confused! So our 170? Act of Settlement in which the head of the Church of England (the Queen) cannot marry a Catholic actually means they can't marry an Anglican as well?

What on earth were all the religious wars about (in Britain!)

Why doesn't Paisley slather at the lips about the Anglican 'catliccs'?

Have any atheists told fundie protestants that they are unbiblical, it seems a better line of argument than going at God, Jesus et al!

Chili

No, I would say that it is just because they are biblical that they miss the mark. John 5:39-40 clearly states that "[you] search the scriptures in which you think you have eternal life--they also testify on my behalf. Yet you are unwilling to come to me to possess that life."

To message here is that to possess this life we must be followers of Jesus and not worshippers of Jesus, etc.

Bede

Don't worry Clive, it's Toto who is confused.

Anglicans are Reformed Protestants distantly related to the Calvinist tradition but not to Lutherans. They do hold to sola scriptura in that they claim all their theological doctrine comes from the bible. Matters of practice and organisation, however, they are happy to pick up from tradition. However, Anglicans have now diverged in so many ways it is hard to pin down all that much they still have in common.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Chris Weimer

I understand. Chili - you are a gnostic. Wow! Doors opened up and heaven beams down to us all.

BTW - where's the evidence offa of a historical Jesus, compared to, say, a historical Paul, a historical Socrates, a historical Julius Caesar, a historical Mithras, a historical Buddha, a historical Frodo Baggins... See where I'm going with this?

As for primitive Christianity, try Nazarean Essenism/Ebionism on for size.

Toto

I bow to your superior experience with Anglicans, although I thought that the word "Protestant" referred to the churches going back to Luther. My experience with American Episcopalians is that they are far from scriptural.

offa

Amos is a gnostic? Where did that come from? I would like a little definition!

Paul is historic, did I ever say otherwise? Socrates? Did I ever say he was not historic ... or, for that matter, did I ever say he was?

And, about Julius Caesar and his Egyptian Calendar, his adding a day after four years ... how about the Jubilee (Egyptian) calender that added 17 1/2 days after 14 years to their 360 day calendar. Their math equals one day in four years.

cweb255, I do not expect you to reply because, well, it is over your head. Maybe Bede knows about the Jubilee Calender, Maybe Amos has some sort of Philosophy.

offa

Casper

I'd take it one step farther and postulate that some Helleno-Hebrews were advocating a "back-to-basics" approach. Their marketing hype was to carry an air of historical legitimacy, while they actually found ways to assimilate into popular culture.

I could even imagine "Mark" being from a Roman family with some distant Jewish roots, with some knowledge of tradition and law, if slightly obfuscated by culture. So he writes something that attempts to tie then-modern spiritual concepts to a more ancient mythicism. Rosicrucians, cabalists, and yes, even protestants do the same thing. A religion born of an earlier state in a state without a designated religion has to change and conform, or be discarded. This was a major point between Eastern and Western governments after the Schism; is Caesar above the Church, or does the Church have the final say?

Clivedurdle

Originally posted by CasperI like it!!

Any other evidence anyone?

Diogenes the Cynic

Are you saying that Christianity was "born" with Mark (or at least with the literary tradition) rather than with any root historical events in Palestine?