The Lord's Day

[Thomas]

Paul is a bit enigmatic in this regard,

In what regard?

Anything he could have possibly known of Jesus the man was second hand, hearsay even.

Indeed, but he believed it.

The Eucharist reference in 1 Corinthians is clearly a received oral tradition – probably Liturgical. As I read it, Paul had an epiphany, went away to sort himself out, and came back, some years later, a full-blown Christian on a mission to spread the word.

...but anyone who has experienced any kind of supernatural epiphany understands that's not how it works.

I don't think such epiphanies have to conform to any rational pattern? Why do you say that's not how it works?

It isn't like Paul had instantaneous intimate knowledge of what took place during Jesus' ministry other than perhaps popular reports.

Oh, if that's what you mean, then yes, I agree. I would have thought Paul had some grasp of the Christian teaching as a self-elected persecutor of Christians.

but I can see where he may have had an adjustment to that understanding.

Perhaps Paul started out as an apocalyptic preacher who saw bringing the gentile within the fold was a precursor to the End Times?

As Christ's Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul taught that pagans did not have to become Jews, but that they did have to commit to worshiping Israel's God, and live according to moral law. All would be one in Christ

According to Paula Fredriksen, Paul's experience of the Risen Christ located the Resurrection in line with Jewish apocalyptic thought. His role was to turn pagans from their gods to Christ.

Clearly there were disagreement over the issue oif Gentile integration. Some taught that circumcision was necessary for a full conversion to Judaism. Paul adamantly disagreed – the presence of Christ and the Holy Spirit within Gentile communities attested to their "adoption" – as Paul says in Galatians 3:
"For you are all the children of God by faith, in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you be Christ's, then are you the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise." (v26-29).

 

[Thomas]

Going back to The Lord's Day, and having brought the Letter to the Galatians to mind:

+++

I was about to launch into – even for me – a lengthy explicatio on why, following Paul's reasoning in Galatians, the Christian is not obliged to follow the Law as delivered to the Jews on the mountain, because it is a covenant between them and God, that stands until the End Times, and the coming of the Messiah. But there is a new covenant in Christ, and the observance of the Lord's Day fulfils that requirement laid on the Jews, in that it observe the Sabbath of and in Christ, etc., etc.

 

[Thomas]

To me you're just playing a game to avoid admitting the obvious, lol. Nothing to do with unicorns or burden of proof.

Yep.

Are there copies kept by groups such as Copts that parallel the NT, in a way that might have become global Christianity if the Catholic church had never existed? Allowing they may lack some part of the 'standard' material or include additional material?

Well we are jumping round the clock a bit here.

The materials included in the Canon were all produced prior to 120AD.

We basically have 'one church' with various smaller groups towards the fringes – Ebionites, and the like. But if we consider the main players, and the main disputes, we're all roughly using the same texts. The Ebionites used a redacted Matthew alone. Marcion's Gospel again was a cut-n-paste job.

I think the point is, who had an interest in keeping the text alive? Only the Christians. If they went, then surely the Gospels would have gone too?

Would Christianity have become a global tradition without the Catholic Church? Unlikely, as the Copts, etc., sprang from that source.

We have to be careful who we're claiming as Catholic, Roman Catholic, etc.

There was no 'Roman Catholic' as a distinct entity until the schism between Latins and Greeks in 1054.

So perhaps the first phase is the collation and survival of the texts in the early centuries. Had there not been a single, identifiable 'Catholic' (ie Universal) Church by the 4th century, then I doubt it would have aroused Constantine's interest. Disparate churches would not have presented a means of stabilising or destabilising the empire. As a single unity, it presented as both.

The next phase would be after the Fall of the Empire, and then the survival of the texts are in the hands of the monastery scriptoria through what we ignobly call 'The Dark Ages'. Had there been no European Catholic Church as such, then they would have been lost, until we started trading with Egypt etc., much later, but whether Coptic or Eastern Orthodoxy would have spread successfully in the West is another question.

It's a big question, and gets fuzzy and vague, but I think the initial point – without the Universal Church there would be no transmission of Scripture – is the point. How that Church might have survived if not Universal is another question ... how did the Jewish Scriptures survive the diaspora after the fall of Jerusalem and centuries of antisemitism? Maybe Christianity might have survived as they did, but the point would still be that the Church transmits the text ... I don't see anyone else taking any significant interest.

Tyndale's Bible of course changed words – ekklesia, until then understood as 'church', became 'congregation' – not wrong, but why the change? To destabilise the authority of the Church. It was published with anti-Catholic commentary, so it's hardly surprising it came in for such stick. This was in the Reformation era ...

Parts of the Bible had been translated from about the 7th century on – notably the Psalms. People could have psalters. Bede is supposed to have translated John. There was never a fuss, never an issue.

 

[RJM]

Thanks @Thomas

 

[juantoo3]

In what regard?

Unlike the other Apostles, who experienced Jesus directly, Paul did not have the benefit of direct transmission of the teachings.

I don't think such epiphanies have to conform to any rational pattern? Why do you say that's not how it works?

I was hoping you could expand on the subject, being into esoterism and such since I am a rank amateur and don't practice.

Oh, if that's what you mean, then yes, I agree. I would have thought Paul had some grasp of the Christian teaching as a self-elected persecutor of Christians.

He played a role, but he didn't cast the stones.

Perhaps Paul started out as an apocalyptic preacher who saw bringing the gentile within the fold was a precursor to the End Times?

As Christ's Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul taught that pagans did not have to become Jews, but that they did have to commit to worshiping Israel's God, and live according to moral law. All would be one in Christ

According to Paula Fredriksen, Paul's experience of the Risen Christ located the Resurrection in line with Jewish apocalyptic thought. His role was to turn pagans from their gods to Christ.

Clearly there were disagreement over the issue oif Gentile integration. Some taught that circumcision was necessary for a full conversion to Judaism. Paul adamantly disagreed – the presence of Christ and the Holy Spirit within Gentile communities attested to their "adoption" – as Paul says in Galatians 3:
"For you are all the children of God by faith, in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you be Christ's, then are you the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise." (v26-29).

I can see this. I'm still on the fence, but I can see it as a distinct possibility.

 

[Thomas]

Unlike the other Apostles, who experienced Jesus directly, Paul did not have the benefit of direct transmission of the teachings.

Gotcha.

I was hoping you could expand on the subject, being into esoterism and such since I am a rank amateur and don't practice.

LOL! I've had my moments, but nothing like Paul ... it was more a general, can we determine what an epiphany has to conform to?

I'm sure you and I both agree that the 'Road to Damascus' moment could be a psychological breakthrough, a sudden realisation ... a lightbulb moment, without the necessary intervention of Christ or the Holy Spirit (and I say 'could be' )

He played a role, but he didn't cast the stones.

Agreed.

I can see this. I'm still on the fence, but I can see it as a distinct possibility.

Ye-haa!

There's a long-distance toast coming your way tonight ...

 

[TheLightWithin]

Do you know of a parallel group that has preserved the New Testament?

Perhaps the various Orthodox churches?

 

[RJM]

Perhaps the various Orthodox churches?

Do you have information?

 

[TheLightWithin]

Do you have information?

Nothing brand new, and I think you guys hashed that out in further comments before I replied to that one which I saw first.
As far as I know all the the churches that survived preserved copies of the New Testament.
In the larger context of the question of who was most responsible for global Christianity I can see that lying most with the Catholics and later with Protestants that inherited everything from Catholics.
I have one thing that might be new info, but I can't find the title of the book, I believe I own it-- but something I read about Orthodox churches interacting with Thomasite churches in India and suppressing any material they had which was not Orthodox.
Oh, until I find that book again I can't expand on that, sorry.

 

[RJM]

As @Thomas observes it is the mainly monasteries that preserved the New Testament scriptures. Monks looked after them and re-copied them carefully, as a sacred duty, down through the ages, imo. That's how we have them

An abbot couldn't just decide to make a change, because it would be checked and balanced by other monasteries

 

[juantoo3]

We have to be careful who we're claiming as Catholic, Roman Catholic, etc.

There was no 'Roman Catholic' as a distinct entity until the schism between Latins and Greeks in 1054.

So perhaps the first phase is the collation and survival of the texts in the early centuries. Had there not been a single, identifiable 'Catholic' (ie Universal) Church by the 4th century, then I doubt it would have aroused Constantine's interest. Disparate churches would not have presented a means of stabilising or destabilising the empire. As a single unity, it presented as both.

If the Church had been "a single, identifiable ... Church, why the need for the Arian/Athanasian Controversy?

This wouldn't even touch such as the Meletians, Gnostics, etc...

Each of these was an interpretation, an opinion if you will, and why I noted had not Constantine brought them together to hash it all out the Church likely would have splintered still more, and without Political might to back any of them up (and potential for yet another persecution), it is also very likely Christianity would have burned itself out and Paganism would have continued as the state religion (which at the time of Constantine it still was, and remained for another few Emperors).

The next phase would be after the Fall of the Empire, and then the survival of the texts are in the hands of the monastery scriptoria through what we ignobly call 'The Dark Ages'. Had there been no European Catholic Church as such, then they would have been lost, until we started trading with Egypt etc., much later, but whether Coptic or Eastern Orthodoxy would have spread successfully in the West is another question.

OK, but this reinforces something I said awhile back about knowledge being confined to the monasteries, and essentially unavailable to the illiterate masses.

how did the Jewish Scriptures survive the diaspora after the fall of Jerusalem and centuries of antisemitism?

Because of the tight knit community of Judaism. Simply put there is no other community that has borne the tribulations that the Jews have, and miraculously that has drawn the Jews closer together than it ever drove them apart.

Maybe Christianity might have survived as they did, but the point would still be that the Church transmits the text ... I don't see anyone else taking any significant interest.

All we can do is speculate, but I would think the odds to be highly against the texts making an impact without the Church, historically speaking.

Tyndale's Bible of course changed words – ekklesia, until then understood as 'church', became 'congregation' – not wrong, but why the change? To destabilise the authority of the Church.

You wouldn't care for the answer, but "yes." It was to destabilize the abuses by the authority of the Church.

I think something all sides lose sight of is that even the Reformation was not about doing away with the teachings, it was always about doing away with the abuse of authority.

Humans being what they are, this only opened the door for more abuse of authority.

In my view, Jesus taught that human authority was never required to follow the teachings or to connect with G!d. And for me that is the final exclamation point to the entire discussion, and why I walk the path I do.

 

[juantoo3]

LOL! I've had my moments, but nothing like Paul ... it was more a general, can we determine what an epiphany has to conform to?

I'm sure you and I both agree that the 'Road to Damascus' moment could be a psychological breakthrough, a sudden realisation ... a lightbulb moment, without the necessary intervention of Christ or the Holy Spirit (and I say 'could be' )

Perhaps. Then again, he was blinded for some time after...that would have to be a very bright lightbulb.

 

[moralorel]

To me you're just playing a game to avoid admitting the obvious, lol. Nothing to do with unicorns or burden of proof.

It is obvious beyond all reasonable doubt, without me needing to prove the lack of evidence to the contrary. That would be your job -- to show there was a parallel group beside the Catholic church that also preserved the New Testament down through the 1500 years -- I mean the gospels, letters, acts and revelation that define major Christian scripture.

Are there copies kept by groups such as Copts that parallel the NT, in a way that might have become global Christianity if the Catholic church had never existed? Allowing they may lack some part of the 'standard' material or include additional material?

@Thomas
@juantoo3

That is actually what I was thinking about you. I was figuring you were just playing some silly game and didn't want to do anything to prove your points. You also didn't want to admit that doing some good deeds doesn't absolve an organization of their past sins.... or current ones.

juantoo3 already answered for you. So thank him.

 

[RJM]

You also didn't want to admit that doing some good deeds doesn't absolve an organization of their past sins.... or current ones.

What I said was that in spite of the faults of men, the Catholic Church alone was responsible for carrying the message of Christ and the texts of the New Testament down through the ages for 1500 years, justifying Christ's words to Peter: upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

 

[moralorel]

It wasn't pretty, that's for sure. I'm not defending the inquisition. But numbers are inflated and there are many misconceptions, imo

Yes, definitely a lot of misconceptions. Agreed.

 

[moralorel]

What I said was that in spite of the faults of men, the Catholic Church alone was responsible for carrying the message of Christ and the texts of the New Testament down through the ages for 1500 years, justifying Christ's words to Peter: upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I definitely disagree that they were alone in this matter, and I believe that they hindered anyone else who wanted to do so. Even to the point of burning them at the stake. As I said before, I agree with what juantoo3 posted. The Catholic church was definitely the main player in preserving the Bible. Those monks spent so much time copying pages of the Bible. If you don't know the process involved, I suggest you research it. It was quite intensive. But if the Catholic church had never existed, the Bible would have survived. We have found enough fragments from authors citing the Bible that we could piece together a Bible simply from the mentions.

 

[RJM]

But if the Catholic church had never existed, the Bible would have survived. We have found enough fragments from authors citing the Bible that we could piece together a Bible simply from the mentions.

Perhaps parts of the New Testament would have still come down to the 21st Century. But I don't believe the gospels and letters and acts would have been preserved in a collated form, and I don't believe there would have been much interest in a few scattered fragmentary bits and pieces about a man called Jesus. However, that is just my own opinion.

The various NT apocrypha and gnostic writings are only of interest because they relate to the NT. The Gospel of Thomas would not be relevant without the existence of the NT Jesus to which it gives a new slant.

Thank you for your responses

(edited)

 

[Thomas]

But if the Catholic church had never existed, the Bible would have survived.

How?

We have found enough fragments from authors citing the Bible that we could piece together a Bible simply from the mentions.

Yeah, but they were Catholic scribes ...

Before anything else, what do you mean by 'Catholic Church' – the first use was around 110AD

But the Catholic Church, as the RC Church, as distinct from the Greek Orthodox, or Coptic or whoever ... wasn't really a think until centuries later.

Whether the NT would have survived or not depends on what happened in those first centuries.

Constantine is supposed to have ordered 50 copies for the Council of Nicaea. It's debatable as to whether that wish was ever carried out.

 

[Thomas]

If the Church had been "a single, identifiable ... Church, why the need for the Arian/Athanasian Controversy?

Well there was no need as such. Arius was one man, a local presbyter in Alexandria, but he believed himself part of that single, universal church. The pope thought the whole thing a local spat, which should have been sorted locally. It's only when Arius got Eusebius involved, a political player, that things gathered traction.

The Church didn't hit the ground running with a spelled-out instruction manual ... it had to work out its theology as it went along. The Jews had had centuries to work out theirs, the Christians were in a rather more compressed time period.

Each of these was an interpretation, an opinion if you will, and why I noted had not Constantine brought them together to hash it all out the Church likely would have splintered still more...

Well, we can't say that for sure, can we? despite all Constantine's efforts, Nicaea didn't solve the problem. Constantine wavered, which didn't help. Successive emperors were pro-semi-arian, pro-pagan, pro-'orthodox' ...

... and without Political might to back any of them up (and potential for yet another persecution), it is also very likely Christianity would have burned itself out and Paganism would have continued as the state religion (which at the time of Constantine it still was, and remained for another few Emperors).

Well I disagree. Christianity was quite well-established by then. Judaism never burned out, did it, and they had a far harder time than us.

OK, but this reinforces something I said awhile back about knowledge being confined to the monasteries, and essentially unavailable to the illiterate masses.

To be fair, I'm not sure of the levels of literacy before and after the Fall of the empire, I am under the impression the masses were illiterate then, although I stand to be corrected – less than 10% coul;d read or write, only the rich got an education?

And there wasn't the structure to educate the masses ... yet the monasteries became the focus of communities, and probably did some degree of teaching. And the universities sprang from the monasteries.

Because of the tight knit community of Judaism. Simply put there is no other community that has borne the tribulations that the Jews have, and miraculously that has drawn the Jews closer together than it ever drove them apart.

Well Christians had suffered persecutions. We can speculate, but we just don't know ...

All we can do is speculate, but I would think the odds to be highly against the texts making an impact without the Church, historically speaking.

Oh, I agree with that.

I think something all sides lose sight of is that even the Reformation was not about doing away with the teachings, it was always about doing away with the abuse of authority.

Agreed ... although it's noted that those abuses continued in the Reformed churches, for the average person, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

In my view, Jesus taught that human authority was never required to follow the teachings or to connect with G!d. And for me that is the final exclamation point to the entire discussion, and why I walk the path I do.

But he did found a Church, and give it authority in His name ... and many who choose to walk their own path still reference that which the Church preserved.

 

[juantoo3]

But if the Catholic church had never existed, the Bible would have survived. We have found enough fragments from authors citing the Bible that we could piece together a Bible simply from the mentions.

While this may (or may not) be true, those fragments would have been historical curiosities, not much different than the Dead Sea Scrolls or Nag Hamadi. I don't think Christianity would have survived as a religion, therefor the sheer quantity would have been drastically reduced...ergo, more subject to disappearing into the mists of time.

Why doesn't Mithraism still exist today? Christianity would have been another footnote in the history books, if a note at all.