Apocrypha in the Quran

[wil]

Originally Posted by c0de
.... [5:110] GOD will say, "O Jesus, son of Mary, remember My blessings upon you and your mother. I supported you with the Holy Spirit, to enable you to speak to the people from the crib, as well as an adult. I taught you the scripture, wisdom, the Torah, and the Gospel. Recall that you created from clay the shape of a bird by My leave, then blew into it, and it became a live bird by My leave. You healed the blind and the leprous by My leave, and revived the dead by My leave. Recall that I protected you from the Children of Israel who wanted to hurt you, despite the profound miracles you had shown them. The disbelievers among them said, `This is obviously magic.' ....
PeAcE

Namaste c0de,

Interesting I believe this is from one of the child gospels of Jesus? An apocryphal text ie not one of the canon?

So would this imply that 100 years after the canon the apocryphal texts were still widely circulated and taught?

Hey Wil,

I am not sure if this story is also related in that gospel or not, to be honest. But those texts were probably more widely available back then they are today. I wonder who on this forum is an expert on this stuff... ?

Can anyone help us here?

How much Christian/Judaic Apocryphal texts are in the Quran?

And how widely circulated and taught was the Apocrypha at the time of writing?

 

[Thomas]

Interesting I believe this is from one of the child gospels of Jesus? An apocryphal text ie not one of the canon?

There were a huge number of stories circulating, as people desired tales of the boy Jesus, their manufacture became something of an industry.

Aretalogy is a form of sacred biography. They are found in Egypt, Mesopotamia and in Greco-Roman times, so contemporary with Jesus and the early Church, and would be performed in a liturgical context.

Alongside these, there would be 'folk aretalogy' — the St Christopher myth being one enduring tale — and here the stories are extensive. Wiki refers to them as being the Grimms' Tales of their day.

So would this imply that 100 years after the canon the apocryphal texts were still widely circulated and taught?

Well the canon wasn't ratified until the Reformation, so I think delineating between canon and apocrypha is something of an anachronism. Many stories would be circulating, of Jesus' childhood and later.

Then again, the Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas were considered 'canon' – The Shepherd is part of the Codex Sinaiticus New Testament, and was cited as Scripture by Irenaeus and Tertullian.

How much Christian/Judaic Apocryphal texts are in the Quran?

The story of Jesus talking from the moment of his birth, I can't recall its origin, but the clay birds turning into living birds is from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which we can date as before 180AD, as it's mentioned by Irenaeus. Not written by Thomas though, any more than the Gospel of Thomas was.

As one of my tutors said, had Mohammed not relied on his own assumptions, but checked the facts properly, such apocryphal tales would not have found their way into the Quran, nor would he had got his ideas about what Christian Doctrine says so fundamentally wrong, but that's another thread ...

Thomas

 

[nativeastral]

.


The story of Jesus talking from the moment of his birth, I can't recall its origin, but the clay birds turning into living birds is from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which we can date as before 180AD, as it's mentioned by Irenaeus. Not written by Thomas though, any more than the Gospel of Thomas was.


.. one of my tutors said, had Mohammed not relied on his own assumptions, but checked the facts properly, such apocryphal tales would not have found their way into the Quran, nor would he had got his ideas about what Christian Doctrine says so fundamentally wrong, but that's another thread ...

Thomas

proof? remember the creeds doctrines were 'formulated' by a bunch of bishops some of them rail-roaded into particular 'votes' at councils- churches were not immune to the patron-client society in Roman times.
you could say it was all arbitrary until the debacles of the great schism and the dots 'joined up' after the reformation.

facts? mmmm

l thought Muhammeds Quran was revelatory? and not assumptions. In any case just pointing out we weren't there to know for sure the beliefs prevalent at the time; but we do know that 'sacred books' were burned through heresies.

And we do know that there are ancient books which departs from 'authoritative orthodoxy' eg the Egyptian Coptic Church from way back following The desert fathers pre-Nicea in 325AD; from which the Celtic Church as you probably know gleaned from, via the 'irish wanderers'. And it had a hard time being accepted by Rome no? why? did they depart also from the 'truth' which had to be accepted 'by the letter'?

I suppose just like Muslims who refuse to criticise their prophet Christians defend the integrity of Jesus 'as assumed' also.
just a thought no argument wanted as l bow to your greater knowledge of your faith

 

[farhan]

So would this imply that 100 years after the canon the apocryphal texts were still widely circulated and taught?

This can be one of the conclusions, although we dont exactly have any concrete evidence to prove that.

The bigger question is, out of all the mythological & semi-mythological folklore, how do you know what is real & what isn't? What's revelation & what's assumption? Are you sure Apocryphal texts were declared apocryphal because of no other reason but the "fact" that they were fake? Or the only source of getting knowledge is by physical senses?

How much Christian/Judaic Apocryphal texts are in the Quran?

There are lots of sources I have read of. Khidr & Dhul-Qarnain from Alexender Romance, Ashab-al-kahf from Seven sleepers, events of Solomon's life, Mt. Sinai being lifted up & some other verses from Talmud & Jewish Apocrypha, Miraj from Zoroastrian sources, Aad & Thamud from Arab folklore, cosmological concepts from greeks....

Here is a long list....its Christian source ofcourse, there are some claims that I know are wrong, like Azazil & five time Sabaen Prayer (They prayed seven times, not five). Others I havent looked into.

The Koran is a book of myths, fables and fairy tales. Pre-Islamic Sources for material in the Quran.

& a reply

Is The Bible Really The Source Of The Qur'an?

 

[Thomas]

proof? remember the creeds doctrines were 'formulated' by a bunch of bishops some of them rail-roaded into particular 'votes' at councils- churches were not immune to the patron-client society in Roman times.

And your proof for that?

Bearing in mind that if correct, then it's difficult to explain why the Church isn't Arian, for that was the favoured position after Nicea.

Might I also point out that the credal statements to which I assume you refer can be traced back to mid second century, and critical reading of Scripture can argue that Paul was aware of them when writing his epistles before the close of the first century?

So this idea of a creed concocted by the bishops at Nicea is in fact the residue of Protestant propaganda, fuelled by New Age ignorance.

So yes, proof ... as opposed to the same tired, worn-out and unsubstantiated propaganda that comprises the most part of your argument.

+++

Whilst it is true that the Emperors consistently sought to take control of the Church, it is also true that the Church resisted outside interference.

As my course director said, "that the Church became the Religion of State is not a miracle, but that the Church retained its doctrine having done so, is absolutely miraculous."

Of course the Emperors tried every trick to get control of the Church.

And, tragically, what now comprises the Eastern Orthodox Church did succumb to the interference of emperors, which is why the influence of the East, once the philosophical powerhouse of the Church, waned away to nothing ... the Western Church successfully resisted such interference which is why the Papacy and Rome has outlived every other monarchical institution in Europe, and why 'theology' continues as a science in the Church.

In one such instance, in 648 the Byzantine Emperor Constans II issued his infamous Typos, a document intended to silence any further discussion of Christology in the Church. This was supported by a number of Eastern bishops, who acted as puppets for the emperor.

In 649 in council in the Lateran in Rome, Pope Martin I and the bishops gathered there condemned the Typos and other attempts at interference by the secular authorities and condemned the patriarchs Paul, Pyrrhus, and Sergius. This affront to Constans' authority brought his wrath down upon the Council. He ordered the arrest of Pope Martin and the use of any force necessary to obtain the signature of the bishops in support of his Typos.

An exarch named Olympius, charged with bringing all this about, assumed the support of the Pope and the bishops, and declared himself emperor. This rebellion fell apart and in 653 Pope Martin I, and a monk names Maximus, who argued skillfully and successfully against every imperial interference, were effectively kidnapped and brought before the Senate of Constantinople.

Neither was allowed to plead his case, and both were found guilty and condemned to death. Constans agreed to commute the sentence to exile, where both Martin and Maximus died, as a result of the ill-treatment they had received.

St Maximus the Confessor (so called because of his defence of the faith) had his right hand and tongue cut off for daring to speak and write against the Emperor.

+++

On another note:
The schism between the Universal Church and the Church of Egypt (Coptic Orthodox) would never have been allowed to happen if the emperors had as much influence in Council as you suggest. Egypt was the 'bread basket' of the Empire, and its loss was a contributing factor to its collapse.

So much for your "facts? mmmm", I think.

And we do know that there are ancient books which departs from 'authoritative orthodoxy' eg the Egyptian Coptic Church from way back following The desert fathers pre-Nicea in 325AD;

Really, what books?

The cause of the schism with the Coptic Church was over the interpretation of the Christology of Cyril of Jerusalem. We, that is both Catholic and Coptic, hold St Cyril in the highest esteem, he is a Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church — my course director told me "read the Christology of Cyril at least eight times, then, when you've done that, sit down, and really start to look into it".

We both love him, in fact, we just interpret him differently.
The Universal Church says Christ is two natures in one Person.
The Coptic Church says Christ is one Person, possessing both a human and a Divine nature.

It's an arcane argument ... with Severus on the one side, St Maximus and Leontius of Byzantium on the other.

And your 'facts' in support of your argument, hmmm?

+++

from which the Celtic Church as you probably know gleaned from, via the 'irish wanderers'.

A nice idea, but somewhat fantastic, I think ...

And it had a hard time being accepted by Rome no? why? did they depart also from the 'truth' which had to be accepted 'by the letter'?

Ah, let's see, that would be the Synod of Whitby (in England), which determined ... the date of easter.

The assumption, by the way, of a 'Celtic Christianity' has about as much going for it as an Irish theme pub. Recent scholarship has shown just how different and divided the Celtic Church was, advancing as it did under the independence of its own local authorities.

The Fall of Ireland, of course, had more to do with English Imperialism than Roman interference.

Thomas

 

[c0de]

As one of my tutors said, had Mohammed not relied on his own assumptions, but checked the facts properly, such apocryphal tales would not have found their way into the Quran, nor would he had got his ideas about what Christian Doctrine says so fundamentally wrong, but that's another thread ...

It is a fact that the Quran does not borrow tales from the Bible, but corrects them. For example, the account of Moses (pbuh) leading the Jews out of Egypt. In the OT, pharoah is drowned with his army (Psalms). While the Quran clearly states that he was not drowned but was spared, to be made a sign for the nations. And both of the two historical figures who are associated with the biblical figure of the "pharoah" of Exodus, have both been excavated, proving the biblical narrative as flawed, and indicating the accuracy of the Quran.

There are many instances in which the biblical accounts contradict the events related in the Quran. The Jews and Christians say that this proves that the Quran is a bad rip-off of the bible. But the Quran says that it is the previous scriptures which have been distorted. For example, all the accounts of the Prophets who have been maligned in the previous scriptures, find redemption in the Quran.

By the way, Muhammed (pbuh) was illiterate. So the idea that he was reading these Christian texts and then picking and choosing stories that he liked and putting them in the Quran is a little absurd. Also, the alternative criticism that someone with the knowledge of the bible was teaching Muhammed (pbuh) does not explain how the Quran could be more historical accurate then the bible, as demonstrated by the example above.

You are free to hold whatever opinion you want Thomas, but you can't get away with sneaking in comments such as the one above without expecting a response

 

[Bishadi]

005.110Then will Allah say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Recount My favour to thee and to thy mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the holy spirit, so that thou didst speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught thee the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel and behold! thou makest out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My leave, and thou breathest into it and it becometh a bird by My leave, and thou healest those born blind, and the lepers, by My leave. And behold! thou bringest forth the dead by My leave. And behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) thee when thou didst show them the clear Signs, and the unbelievers among them said: 'This is nothing but evident magic.

first bold shares, how the message was given life

second, that jesus and the gate (israel) were not good together

Namaste c0de,

Interesting I believe this is from one of the child gospels of Jesus? An apocryphal text ie not one of the canon?

not really, as even in Hebrews 13 it canbe read




11for of those beasts whose blood is brought for sin into the holy places through the chief priest -- of these the bodies are burned without the camp.
12Wherefore, also Jesus -- that he might sanctify through [his] own blood the people -- without the gate did suffer;
13now, then, may we go forth unto him without the camp, his reproach bearing;
14for we have not here an abiding city, but the coming one we seek; 15through him, then, we may offer up a sacrifice of praise always to God, that is, the fruit of lips, giving thanks to His name;

Can anyone help us here?

How much Christian/Judaic Apocryphal texts are in the Quran?

Much of the whole book is talking about the 'Days of Judgment'

judgement

second
creation

revelation

CRCC: Center For Muslim-Jewish Engagement: Resources: Religious Texts

use the search tool and enjoy yourself

bet it surprises the heck out of the majority to how much of the quran is talking about tomorrow: to have faith in the coming truth

Muhammed knew he was not the last to bring news

And how widely circulated and taught was the Apocrypha at the time of writing?

no one knows that, heck in the period, many men/women were killed just for possessing written material.

Most had to be of clergy, wealth or status; but peasants (guys like me) had to be careful to even consider reading.


061.008Their intention is to extinguish Allah's Light (by blowing) with their mouths: But Allah will complete (the revelation of) His Light, even though the Unbelievers may detest (it)

 

[Netti-Netti]

Thomas,

"that the Church became the Religion of State is not a miracle, but that the Church retained its doctrine having done so, is absolutely miraculous."

Yikes. I'd have to say that's a serious misapplication of the term "miraculous" (as in a miracle).

the Western Church successfully resisted such interference which is why the Papacy and Rome has outlived every other monarchical institution in Europe, and why 'theology' continues as a science in the Church.

I thought science involved replicable findings and testable hypotheses.

We both love him, in fact, we just interpret him differently.

So that must mean that doctrinal hermeneutics are just an idle amusement.

Your somewhat flippant comment about differences in opinion would seem to suggest that doctrine doesn't really matter. Different approaches to interpreting various theological concepts would be expected to lead to different opinions. Doesn't this undercut the Church's authority by allowing for unofficial doctrine?

 

[wil]

not really, as even in Hebrews 13 it canbe read

Namaste Bishadi,

I bolded the part I was discussing,

Recall that you created from clay the shape of a bird by My leave, then blew into it, and it became a live bird

As to the canon, I had thought it was earlier, but now see 375 as the common date, and I see the claim that it wasn't cannonized till the 1500's...that would actually be the latest update date would it not.

And Apocryphal doesn't mean myth, just outside of the canon...?? As we all know, plenty of myth inside the canon.

 

[Thomas]

It is a fact that the Quran does not borrow tales from the Bible, but corrects them.

No, that is an article of faith.

You are free to hold whatever opinion you want Thomas, but you can't get away with sneaking in comments such as the one above without expecting a response

Ditto.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Yikes. I'd have to say that's a serious misapplication of the term "miraculous" (as in a miracle).

It was a light-hearted comment, but with a strong element of truth.

I thought science involved replicable findings and testable hypotheses.

Yes. You don't think metaphysics or philosophy qualifies as a science?

So that must mean that doctrinal hermeneutics are just an idle amusement.

No it doesn't. It means there's more to humanity than hermeneutics.

Your somewhat flippant comment about differences in opinion would seem to suggest that doctrine doesn't really matter.

I would have thought most people round here know me well enough by now not to assume that. Perhaps the comment is not so flippant as you assume.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

As to the canon, I had thought it was earlier, but now see 375 as the common date, and I see the claim that it wasn't cannonized till the 1500's...that would actually be the latest update date would it not.

The practice of the Church was to leave things open — doctrine is not, as most assume, a list of things you must believe, but rather a preventative against error. Doctrine is usually only formulated in the face of dispute, to clarify a teaching, which is why no doctrine in Catholicism contradicts that which precedes it.

There is no doctrine of Salvation, for example, nor a Doctrine of the Resurrection, because Christ's salvific activity, and His resurrection from the dead, was never seriously challenged.

The Church saw it necessary to declare those books it considered to be canonical, when Luther started tossing out those that didn't agree with his theology.

As G.K. Chesterton said, " there's two kinds of people in the world, those with a doctrine, and know it, and those with a doctrine, and don't know it."

And Apocryphal doesn't mean myth, just outside of the canon...??

Yep.

As we all know, plenty of myth inside the canon.

I love it when you make these sweeping statements that include everyone in your assumptions. Yes, there are myths in Scripture and no, nowhere near as much as you choose to assume.

You fall into Bultmann's error in assuming such, and scholarship now largely accepts Bultmann assumed too much on his own presuppositions.

Generally, Genesis 1-11 is regarded as myth (that is not to say not true) ... in the New Testament, I suppose Apocalypse is mythopoeic ... but the Gospels and the Epistles? No myth there.

Thomas

 

[c0de]

No, that is an article of faith.


Ditto.

Thomas

lol, fair enuff

 

[wil]

I love it when you make these sweeping statements that include everyone in your assumptions. Yes, there are myths in Scripture and no, nowhere near as much as you choose to assume.

You fall into Bultmann's error in assuming such, and scholarship now largely accepts Bultmann assumed too much on his own presuppositions.

Generally, Genesis 1-11 is regarded as myth (that is not to say not true) ... in the New Testament, I suppose Apocalypse is mythopoeic ... but the Gospels and the Epistles? No myth there.

Thomas

Namaste Brother, I love how you choose to assume how much I choose to assume...

And also how you vehemently disagree with my sweeping assertion and then simply describe what I might have if I wrote 7 sentences instead of one.

Don't know Bultman, didn't know about his error, but love the challenge...

Modern Christian Thought: The ... - Google Book Search

 

[Thomas]

Namaste Brother, I love how you choose to assume how much I choose to assume...

Sorry if I overstep the mark, bro ... but you must admit, 'someone who calls himself a Christian, and cannot bring himself to use a Christian form of greeting ... that says a lot ...

And also how you vehemently disagree with my sweeping assertion and then simply describe what I might have if I wrote 7 sentences instead of one.

Why does everyone assume vehemence of me?

As I read it, you have stated on a number of occasions that you regard the Gospels as unreliable data if not fictional, and seem to work according to the 'critical minimum': what's the very least I have to accept to be considered a Christian?

Re the book ref, I can find nothing on it, so not sure where we go from here?

Thomas

 

[wil]

Sorry if I overstep the mark, bro ... but you must admit, 'someone who calls himself a Christian, and cannot bring himself to use a Christian form of greeting ... that says a lot ...

Namaste...the light in me honors, salutes and recognizes the light in you.. light can be substituted for Christ, all that is good, Krishna etc. If the fact that I honor other religions and borrow a term from another language is what you are standing on in decrying my belief and understanding in our elder brother and wayshower...heaven forbid, woe is me.

Brother... did you feel that term was used in some other venue, as if we were from the same parent or as an ethnic thing, or could it have been brothers in Christ...hmmm again so do my words Namaste Brother, say a lot about me not being Christian as you imply or does your response speak volumes about your perception?

Why does everyone assume vehemence of me?

I don't know, I wouldn't use the sweeping everyone, again this would be your perception?

As I read it, you have stated on a number of occasions that you regard the Gospels as unreliable data if not fictional, and seem to work according to the 'critical minimum': what's the very least I have to accept to be considered a Christian?

Yes, did he feed 5,000 or 7,000? or was did it happen? Did he answer the Pharissee or did the scholar answer him? Yes, I regard the Gospels as containing truth as providing a peak into the life of Jesus, but we both know that as exact quotes, no, since every translation, every version, contains different quotes, everything was oral tradition until it was written down, exact quotes don't exist, and scholars will continue to debate what the essence is for 2,000 more years. But that doesn't mean, despite your comments I'll quit my attempt of putting on the mind of Christ as Paul asks and follow my elder brother and wayshower.

Re the book ref, I can find nothing on it, so not sure where we go from here?

Thomas

I don't know, I just googled Bultmann's error and read about the 'fatal' error of his thinking....and provided the link as to where the path led me.

 

[Thomas]

I don't know, I just googled Bultmann's error and read about the 'fatal' error of his thinking....and provided the link as to where the path led me.

Bultmann's 'error' was in assuming that the disciples invented Christianity, because he didn't accept Christ was the Incarnate Son. He went as far as suggesting (but not seriously, even his own university balked at that) that Jesus Christ Himself was a myth with not actual historical reality.

Because of the weight of scholarship he carried, Bultmann's myth thesis was accepted. It's only when his Catholic critics got to work did it emerge that the whole thesis was without any supporting evidence whatsoever. It was simply Bultmann's incredulity.

With the passing of time, more and more evidence, archaeological, sociological, textual, etc., is emerging that highlights the ill-founded assumptions of his suppositions.

In short, as i see it, your claims of 'myth' in the New Testament is founded on no evidence other than your own incredulity.

light can be substituted for Christ...

Why would anyone want to substitute Christ in the first place?

Yes, did he feed 5,000 or 7,000? Did it happen?

I was on a demonstration against the war in Iraq. The organisers said N number were present, the police and different number, and one newspaper had a third number. By your reckoning, the event never happened?

despite your comments I'll quit my attempt of putting on the mind of Christ as Paul asks and follow my elder brother and wayshower.

Paul does not present Christ as an 'elder brother' though, does he? Or a 'wayshower' ... like 'namaste', these are terms from another paradigm which don't quite fit with the Christian one, which diffuse the meaning and allow you enough room to manoeuvre so that you can claim Christianity whilst at the same time redefining it according to yourself.

It's called 'cherry-picking'.

I mean, 'put on the mind of Christ' ... how do you know he even said that? Why should you believe that, and not something else? You can't have it all ways Wil.

Thomas

 

[wil]

Why would anyone want to substitute Christ in the first place?

evidently you've never heard who was the light of the world

I was on a demonstration against the war in Iraq. The organisers said N number were present, the police and different number, and one newspaper had a third number. By your reckoning, the event never happened?

By my reckoning I'm speaking to an eyewitness, one who was there, within a decade of the event. Likely it happenned, now 40 years from now, I would probably distrust your recollection of the event.

I mean, 'put on the mind of Christ' ... how do you know he even said that? Why should you believe that, and not something else? You can't have it all ways Wil.

Thomas

It is my understanding that these are actually his words, his letters (most of them, I understand some are in contention (yes no maybe so?) Written during his time by him. Now again, if without his letters we'd have word of stories of what happenned and when and what was said and to whom. And I'd see them as they would be then.

Have you read Miquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman? Now there is a theologian who backs up all his work with footnotes...but I'd doubt you'd appreciate him.

 

[nativeastral]

And your proof for that?

Bearing in mind that if correct, then it's difficult to explain why the Church isn't Arian, for that was the favoured position after Nicea.

Might I also point out that the credal statements to which I assume you refer can be traced back to mid second century, and critical reading of Scripture can argue that Paul was aware of them when writing his epistles before the close of the first century?

So this idea of a creed concocted by the bishops at Nicea is in fact the residue of Protestant propaganda, fuelled by New Age ignorance.

So yes, proof ... as opposed to the same tired, worn-out and unsubstantiated propaganda that comprises the most part of your argument.

+++

Whilst it is true that the Emperors consistently sought to take control of the Church, it is also true that the Church resisted outside interference.

As my course director said, "that the Church became the Religion of State is not a miracle, but that the Church retained its doctrine having done so, is absolutely miraculous."

Of course the Emperors tried every trick to get control of the Church.

And, tragically, what now comprises the Eastern Orthodox Church did succumb to the interference of emperors, which is why the influence of the East, once the philosophical powerhouse of the Church, waned away to nothing ... the Western Church successfully resisted such interference which is why the Papacy and Rome has outlived every other monarchical institution in Europe, and why 'theology' continues as a science in the Church.

In one such instance, in 648 the Byzantine Emperor Constans II issued his infamous Typos, a document intended to silence any further discussion of Christology in the Church. This was supported by a number of Eastern bishops, who acted as puppets for the emperor.

In 649 in council in the Lateran in Rome, Pope Martin I and the bishops gathered there condemned the Typos and other attempts at interference by the secular authorities and condemned the patriarchs Paul, Pyrrhus, and Sergius. This affront to Constans' authority brought his wrath down upon the Council. He ordered the arrest of Pope Martin and the use of any force necessary to obtain the signature of the bishops in support of his Typos.

An exarch named Olympius, charged with bringing all this about, assumed the support of the Pope and the bishops, and declared himself emperor. This rebellion fell apart and in 653 Pope Martin I, and a monk names Maximus, who argued skillfully and successfully against every imperial interference, were effectively kidnapped and brought before the Senate of Constantinople.

Neither was allowed to plead his case, and both were found guilty and condemned to death. Constans agreed to commute the sentence to exile, where both Martin and Maximus died, as a result of the ill-treatment they had received.

St Maximus the Confessor (so called because of his defence of the faith) had his right hand and tongue cut off for daring to speak and write against the Emperor.

+++

On another note:
The schism between the Universal Church and the Church of Egypt (Coptic Orthodox) would never have been allowed to happen if the emperors had as much influence in Council as you suggest. Egypt was the 'bread basket' of the Empire, and its loss was a contributing factor to its collapse.

So much for your "facts? mmmm", I think.


Really, what books?

The cause of the schism with the Coptic Church was over the interpretation of the Christology of Cyril of Jerusalem. We, that is both Catholic and Coptic, hold St Cyril in the highest esteem, he is a Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church — my course director told me "read the Christology of Cyril at least eight times, then, when you've done that, sit down, and really start to look into it".

We both love him, in fact, we just interpret him differently.
The Universal Church says Christ is two natures in one Person.
The Coptic Church says Christ is one Person, possessing both a human and a Divine nature.

It's an arcane argument ... with Severus on the one side, St Maximus and Leontius of Byzantium on the other.

And your 'facts' in support of your argument, hmmm?

+++


A nice idea, but somewhat fantastic, I think ...


Ah, let's see, that would be the Synod of Whitby (in England), which determined ... the date of easter.

The assumption, by the way, of a 'Celtic Christianity' has about as much going for it as an Irish theme pub. Recent scholarship has shown just how different and divided the Celtic Church was, advancing as it did under the independence of its own local authorities.

The Fall of Ireland, of course, had more to do with English Imperialism than Roman interference.

Thomas

hi thomas
am afraid l cant multi-quote since l am only learning computer skills!

l meant to imply that it was the church initially, through the Donatist schism in North Africa which appealed to Constantine directly after his success in 312, who then grudgingly got involved and summoned the Council of Arles in 314. His letters are here Fourth-Century Christianity .'On this account it has happened that those very ones who ought to hold brotherly and harmonious relations toward each other are shamefully,or rather abominably,divided among themselves..' ,...'It is disgraceful that shameful feuds have allowed this dispute to continue until the present time'- how contemporary!

So of course with the Arian dispute he again had to organise and finance that as well, due to the credal,doctrinal,theological differences in the different areas which very quickly emerged once persecution ended and the cult of the martyrs dissipitated. If the univeral catholic church had cast iron beliefs by the end of the 3rd century perhaps the imperialisation of Christianity may never have occurred to the extent that it did. It was the church, the bishops who gladly proclaimed the Emperor vice regent of Christ, in line with the divine rights of kings before then eg the eulogy of historian/bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, his 'P.R.'.

There is no protestant/new age propaganda in my comments, which were gleaned from academic/university sources whilst studying early church history unless you think historians such as W.Walker is a new ager? Granted l was more interested in the historical/philosophical and contextual milieux that gave rise to the popularity of Christianity rather than scriptural exegesis but l am well aware of the personality disputes, even murder, and schisms, particularly concerning the nature of Christ which wasn't resolved at Nicea as you pointed out, despite anti-Arian anathemas to the apostles creed to counteract Aruis' ''there was a time when he [Jesus] was not', ie he was G-d in a secondary sense eg 'true G-d from true G-d'.

So yes some of the eastern churches were railroaded into quickly voting under the auspices of Constantine who naively couldn't understand the severity of the situation concerning the necessity of Jesus having to be both divine/man. There were translative and historical misunderstandings over the term homoousios, or same substance [the joke over one iota of a difference],then later the filoque which helped cause the east-west schism. Quite a lot of Christianity in the empire was Arian for more than a hundred years after Nicea, up till the 10th century in Germany. These disputes helped define the centrality of the Trinity, but of course caused more schisms, the hallmark of Christianity.

Why was it miraculous that the catholic church retained its doctines after the fall of Rome 410? 'let there be no innovation' , thats why, also Rome was already on its knees and the 'bread basket' had already been routed to
Constantinople as the royal capital of the empire 330. The church 'took' on the 'purple' mantle of 'Pontifex Maximus' along with the 'vestal virgins' It had effectively became the government by that time, the only 'collegia' left and organised along Roman senate lines to maintain order and counteract barbarian invasions.

Concerning apocryphal books it was the book of Enoch l was thinking about, accepted as canon by the Ethiopian church. My post point was that there were many apocryphal writings which were burned or given over during persecutions, even by pious Catholics [who knows what is in the Vatican vaults!] There is now a journal of pseudepigrapha where historians are diligently doing what historians do.

There is a Celtic Christian Church. Again, many Christian churches all with differing concepts/beliefs on the figure of Christ?. Is this the pub you were referring to?! Article re pub baptims

Seems fitting to end with Cyril of jerusalem whom you love and l believe his feast is soon on the 18th, even he thought there was no other 'alternative' but to accept the formulations agreed at Nicea, implying choices made contextually, and that things could have been otherwise.
Cyril of Jerusalem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To justify practise one must theorize and separate the wheat from the chaff which the Catholic Church has done but at the expense of schisms which 'contain within it the seeds of heresy, a pejorative term meaning choice or opinion?

 

[Thomas]

Hi nativeastral —

l meant to imply that it was the church initially, through the Donatist schism in North Africa which appealed to Constantine directly after his success in 312, who then grudgingly got involved and summoned the Council of Arles in 314. His letters are here Fourth-Century Christianity.

Careful reading shows that the Donatist schismatics by-passed the Church when they failed to win their way, and appealed to the Emperor directly. It is not uncommon for shismatics to appeal to politics when they can't make their point theologically.

Constantine passed the matter to the Pope to determine the issue, the Pope did not appeal to Constantine for a resolution, or for support in forming one.

Here, as at Nicea, the Emperor acts to preserve the peace — what is decided is really not important to him, what matters is a decision which will settle dispute and restore harmony in the empire. Neither here nor at Nicea does Constantine act to determine Church doctrine, nor discipline, which was my main point in reference to the wording of your post.

It is an historical fact that Constantine asked for an extra sentence to be included in the settlement of Nicea, but it is not often noted that the request originated with the emperor's secretary on religious matters, a Christian theologian appointed to his service. And, as it turned out, not only was the extra sentence necessary, it still did not prevent the Arian party from interpreting the document as they chose.

That emperors sought to control councils I do not dispute, they called their own (which were pronounced void by the Church); poor old Athanasius was exiled/exonerated five times as imperial favour swayed back and forth; had the emperors control then the Typos would have been enforced in the West as in the East, and no Church would have been allowed to separate, so the Donatists, the Nestorians, the Coptics and others would have faced the harshest imperial censure, if not persecution, as did Pope Martin I and St Maximus the Confessor for daring to suggest the Emperor has no authority in sacerdotal matters.

That the Church saw the Emperor as appointed by God is hardly surprising, it's the way the world was in those days — the Jews saw their overthrow by various dynasties as willed by God, and the Christians saw Constantine's favouring of the Church as equally the will of God. But they at no point saw Constantine, or any other temporal power, as the source of doctrine.

There is a Celtic Christian Church. Again, many Christian churches all with differing concepts/beliefs on the figure of Christ?. Is this the pub you were referring to?! Article re pub baptims
Well, it certainly points to the nonsense of 'the Celtic Church' — believe me, I looked for it. What you get is Greek Orthodox with an Irish accent, the point being that Christianty in Ireland, separate from Rome, would remain true to its Eastern roots (or not Christian at all) — but I do admit there is a big industry in inventing the content of Celtic Christianity.

The pub baptism only highlights what a laughing-stock this invention has become. It reads like an episode of "Father Ted".

Seems fitting to end with Cyril of jerusalem whom you love and l believe his feast is soon on the 18th, even he thought there was no other 'alternative' but to accept the formulations agreed at Nicea...

Can you cite your text for that?

But yes, things could have been different. Arius could have accepted that what he was teaching was not what he had been taught (it was Platonised Christianity), and then there would have been no dispute, a game of politics in which he was, as he bemoaned himself, very quickly sidelined by political opportunists.

Luther, by the way, bemoaned the same fate. Lutheranism is a mere fraction of the Protestant Christian ecclesiology, he too being very quickly broken away from.

To justify practise one must theorize and separate the wheat from the chaff which the Catholic Church has done but at the expense of schisms which 'contain within it the seeds of heresy, a pejorative term meaning choice or opinion?

As more than one philosopher has noted, to be 'heresy' means there must be orthodoxy to begin with.

Heresy does not open the door to speculation, it shuts it down. There is no heresy which references the Mystery more closely than orthodoxy ... heresy invariably stands on one person saying 'I can't believe that'.

Thomas