EthnAlln

In some cases, like the "living water that will flow out of a virtuous person", Jesus appears to have quoted scripture that doesn't exist.

But I wouldn't be so sure that we'd know nothing about the early Church without the Bible. Indeed, I'm rather convinced that a lot of the Gospels are based on an oral tradition, and that Mark had almost no written sources to compile his narratives from, except the sayings of Jesus (in "Q", whoever that was, certainly not the wacky inventor in the James Bond movies). He gives almost no biographical detail of Jesus' life. And of course the few biographical details added in Matthew and Luke don't agree with each other. Then, of course, there is John's beautiful, but ghostly, definitely non-realistic prologue. All in all, if there was any written source for the non-dialogue parts of the Gospels, it gives every appearance of deriving from an oral tradition.

That's a "must-have-happened-this-way" type of argument. From my own experience writing the history of mathematics, I can tell you that the way a modern person imagines something "must have" happened is almost never supported by the original documents, when they can be found.

I don't think that follows. Catholics have faith that the Holy Spirit will guide Church councils and the Pope. They don't think what comes out of the hierarchy is merely human will. I agree with you that it actually is merely human, but different people choose different oracles. No reason can be given why a text handed down over the generations should be the instrument by which a divinity communicates with the human race. The Episcopal Church, of which my wife is a member and cleric, holds that the Holy Spirit communicates with us in four ways: (1) Scripture; (2) Christian tradition; (3) Direct inspiration; (4) Human reason. Why not? I fail to see how three of these routes can be ruled out.


I can't speak for Peter, of course. But if one thing is crystal clear about the Bible, it is that the text is ambiguous. Its writers seem to have agreed with Emerson that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," with the result that there are deep schisms in the Christian community, for example between those who believe human beings must do something to save themselves and those who think this is impossible, that God has already decided whether or not they are saved. I like the former belief much better, but the latter have an impressive array of verses that they can quote. It's sort of irrelevant to me in any case, since I am an atheist.

pharoah

The last paragraph contradicts the first. The Torah allowed no exceptions for "good works" on the Sabbath. So if Jesus altered the tradition then he didn't practice sola sciptura.

pharoah

I doubt it, but quite a few of the practices that we know about, such as redistribution of wealth and baptism for the dead, are strenuously rejected by Modern Christianity, so I don't think they really want to know how early Christians worshiped.

Steven Avery

Hi pharoah,

Jesus addressed this very objection with 'exceptions' from Tanach in his answers to the sabbath questions in Matthew 12.

Shalom,
Steven

Mr. Logic

This may help someone. This is a e mail that I sent to an Agnostic!

This sounds a lot like myself a few years back. O.K. so it's farther back then I would like to believe! <s>
Most of the problems that you have with Scripture isn't really the problem. The problem is the arrogant way that it is taught by a much of know it all Teachers, who if so right, would not divide themselves up into thousands of groups.

Example: Have you ever heard anyone say "I'm an Aries, and we Aries, don't believe in all that astrological stuff"? <s>
Silly? You bet, but it isn't one bit more silly than someone who claims to be a Baptist or Pentecostal that lives their life by what is written in Scripture.
Truly follow what is written and you won't divided or promote divisions. That simple! The fact that millions do is proof to many of them that it's o.k., but that means that they are believing what Teachers and Ministers say, true?
They ignore what is written while defending what is written, or so they say!

They ignore that as they ignore "The wages of sin is death", not Eternal torment in Hell, which by they way is a temporal place according to the scriptures.
BTW, I use the word "Scriptures" (Plural) for that is also what is taught.
The word "Bible" isn't in "The Bible"! <s>
Also the word "Religion" is a neg. Word. This word and it's derivatives is used a total of 7 times. 4 times in the neg. mode, by a Chosen Teacher and 3 in the positive, by a Man that was honored because of his DNA to Jesus.

Note: One of those times the word used in the Greek was the same word for superstition. The word TRUTH otoh, is used over a hundred times.
You will never get the truth about scripture from someone who thinks that Religion is a positive word, and that the scriptures are about World Religion.

From the start, a False representation sprung up with Judaizers, and their Trouble Making Leader, James. The Galatian Church started by Paul under spiritual grace soon changed for them to going back under Jewish law (The law btw, was not given as a reward for building the Golden Calf <s>) Ministers can't tell you why, but Gal. 3:19 does.
I don't know you but you don't sound like a guy that needs a law to keep you from killing others. There are People that do need it, but the law is not for those who have a changed heart and don't need it. Read Tim.1:1

Anyway, at first the Judaizers were a problem with their Legal and religious slant on things, and later it was the Pagan's which prob. started with Justin Martyr and his 3 name chant and dip, which is still done today by most Believers.
There is no water in the Great Commission, so this is a total mess concerning what this truly meant in the Ancient Greek that it was written in. They simply narrowed the word "Baptism" to a religious word pertaining to a ritual with water.

I, btw, have proven this to a Greek Scholar who orig. popped up to play Defense Attorney for this tradition, assuming that if so many believe it true, must be.
TRUTH: What a bunch of People agree to believe doesn't mean a hill of beans.
Evidence and harmony is everything, and blind faith in the beliefs of Leaders is worth nothing to someone who won't accept anything but the truth.

The Church age began on Pentecost and no one has been able to defeat this fact, even though they won't defend it. The exact number of Church Members baptized by John can be figured out to the exact number, believe it or not.
That number is Zero! John baptized Jews, not Church Members, since John was dead before Pentecost, and his baptism to the Jews to prepare them for Messiah was over. Jesus makes this clear and Religionists ignore, Acts 1:5

I can prove that God did not give us "The Bible" but he did give certain Men direct revelation to be shared. As Luther knew, since he rejected James, (I rejected it also 2 years before hearing of Luther's rejection, or even truly know much about Luther, who was still a bit to religion for me, but he came a long way for someone raised in that Religion). He came to an understanding about what grace by faith was, the same way that I did. From reading Paul. He read Paul in Romans, and it changed his life. I read Paul in Galatians, and the same happened. Well, kind of. It's more complex than that, but Galatians brought it home for me.
Since Works aren't something that one HAS TO DO. It is something that is AUTOMATIC. All who believe something act on it, no matter what that something is.
Paul still witnesses to People today, even though he made mistakes in his thinking that can be proven. He was to be a messenger for what God said, and when God didn't talk, Paul should have been silent, as Jesus was on issues, but he wasn't Jesus and he sometimes gave his opinion, and that isn't what a messenger does.

We have to many of those kind of Messengers now, speaking for God!

Hope that this isn't to much to soon, but I simply want you to understand that believing in scripture has nothing to do with belief in "Christianity"
Almost every person on forums is speaking for some group. They don't read or ponder the scriptures for themselves. They only know God though a Leader or group, and so don't know God at all, or a Paul said of The Judizer and James, "They follow another gospel and another Jesus" Gal.1 and 2 Cor. 11

3DJay

Maybe. But, for the sake of the topic, "Restoring the purity of early Christian worship", I'm assuming there may have been a Jew named Christ, who had Jewish followers, who thought he was the Jewish Messiah, which was written about, by early Christians, as the origins of their belief system.

If you have evidence of a different origin, I'm all ears.

According to Church history, this is what happened to the Apostles, who supposedly knew Jesus...

James and Simon the Canaanite, became patriarchs in Jerusalem.
Patriarchs of Jerusalem
1 James the Just (Death of Jesus-62)
2 Simeon I (62-107)

Andrew became the patriarch in Constantinople.
Patriarchs of Constantinople
1. St. Andrew the Apostle (founder)

Simon Peter became patriarch in Antioch, then later, Pope.
Patriarchs of Antioch
Peter the Apostle (37-53)

John died in Greece. Philip was martyred by crucifixion in Hierapolis. Bartholomew was martyred in Armenia. Thomas went East. James, son of Alphaeus, was martyred in Egypt. Matthew was martyred in Ethiopia. Jude was martyred with Simon.

Eusebius, concerning the Bishops of Jerusalem:
Acts:
That last passage, refered to Paul. The Jews even considered him a Nazarene. Acts 21 describes his arrest. He had been sent with 4 men, by James, to the Jewish temple to purify themselves.

Nazarenes
The Nazarene Way
Ebionites
"After the death of Jesus, the movement organized itself into the Jerusalem church overseen by Jesus' brother James the Just.[8]"

This is how Paul speaks of the Apostles...
1. He doesn't seem to be on very close terms with them. 2. He doesn't seem to have the greatest respect for them. 3. He claims to know better than them. 4. The leading "pillar", James, follows Jewish traditions.

Jewish priests, however, did not consider James to be one of them. Josephus:
The original "Christians" seemed to have been in between Judaism and later Christianity, as it was developed by the teachings of Paul, who did teach that the old laws were no longer important.

Now, if you read up on Arianism, you'll find that it did not begin with Arius. Those beliefs were already around. And, those beliefs were strongest in the East, where Christianity had originated, with the Nazarenes and Ebionites.

The earliest versions of the Trinity, did not include 3 equals. Jesus, and the Holy Ghost, were subserviant to God, inferior to God, God's first creation, or some such. After the Trinity concept was fully evolved, such views could be considered forms of Arianism or semi-Arianism...indicating Christianity moved from non-Trinitarianism to Trinitarianism, not that Arianism moved from Trinitarianism to non-Trinitarianism. And, that Arianism was actually closer to the older belief.

What is Arianism?


Peace

Mr. Logic

Simon Peter became patriarch in Antioch, then later, Pope.
Patriarchs of Antioch
Peter the Apostle (37-53)

There is no evidence that Peter was ever a Pope in Rome. It is odd that so many Catholics would claim this when right in Gal.2 we see Paul rebuking the first infallible one to his face <s>

You have said some very interesting things here, but can't go along with that one. James, b t w, was written by the Head of the Judaizers, and not by a Chosen Apostle. He goes on a lot about works but no mention of the work that Christ did for our sins! That's beyond odd, since Paul down played our works, even though he worked harder than anyone.
James otoh, sat like a King in Jerusalem. Those in Acts 21 didn't have a prob. with James, just Paul.
thanks

Riverwind

Tell me where. Where does it say one may not practice "good works" on the Sabbath?

That was the traditional extension of the pharisees, which Jesus was countering to show that ritual for the sake of ritual and tradition for the sake of tradition is meaningless and absurd.

3DJay

Nope. No evidence. Technically, there's no real evidence he was even alive. But, that was the belief of early Christian writers.

Origins of Peter as Pope
All I said was "according to church history", which it is. Antioch is more important, anyway. That is where Arius eventually trained, under Lucian, who was also a non-Trinitarian.

According to Paul, he worked harder than anyone. According to Paul, his knowledge was equal to the apostles. According to Paul, he spoke with Jesus. According to Paul, the "pillars" agreed with him preaching to the Gentiles. According to Paul, he proved Peter wrong. According to Paul.....Paul had a lot to say about himself.

BTW, if Christianity had its roots with the Jews, then it would have been Paul the Gentilizer, not James the Judaizer.
Same bunch that took out James.


Peace

pharoah

The above verses stress that if a man did any work on the Sabbath he was to be put to death. No works means no works, or else anyone could argue that he was doing good works.

This poor fellow could probably have argued that he was just trying to keep his family warm.

What we see in the NT passages about the Sabbath is the need for the various Christian communities to accommodate Gentile converts and the fierce differences between various 1st-century Jewish sects on the interpetation of scripture. The Jerusalem church probably practiced strict Sabbath adherence; the Jewish Christian diaspora, which the evangelists (ex. Luke) were part of, wanted a modified Sabbath; and the Pauline communities wanted it eliminated altogether.