1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Is the Apostle John a Heretic?

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Thinkingstuff, Feb 23, 2009.

  1. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian


    How do you verify the validity of any historical document?
     
  2. bound

    bound New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is no empirical means of doing so.
     
  3. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Not entirely true.
     
  4. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Forgive me, but you may well be conflating 'most evangelical circles' with 'here' on that one. It's a fairly widespread belief amongst Catholic, Anglican and some evangelical scholars.

    Oh, I don't know; Augustus, the first Roman Emperor lived until 78, and Tiberius his successor until 79, and both were probably murdered.
    Sounds a bit Mormon to me...
    Clement? The Didache?

    I'm not so sure; to be a Patriarch (in the west as well as the east) was a pretty dangerous occupation, even after the establishment of Christianity under Theodosius; Patriarchs were often deposed, forced into exile, and generally menaced by the Emperor particularly in the East (and by barbarians in the West later).

    The message ot the Seven Churches
    I very much doubt it that the Roman church was the Great Harlot; far more likely to be the Roman civil power which was busy persecuting that church; plus when Jesus, speaking through John, is quite able to specifically rebuke seven congregations in Asia, I don't think He'd have much trouble in adding Rome to that list (I know it would mean messing up the 'magic number' of seven, but still...)
     
  5. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Er...I think most fundamentalists would take issue with you on that one!!
    Wot no miracles then? Jairus' daughter wasn't really dead but was just in a coma? The feeding of the 5000 came about because the crowd (some of whom secretly did have food on them but were unwilling to share it) were shamed into handing out their food by the small boy?
    Except that for me it's there already in Scripture eg: in John 6:32-59 (and for Luther it was "This is My Body, this is My Blood")and the ECF's writings on the Real Presence are entirely consistent with that Scripture. So there's no 'development' by the ECFs, merely an expanded explanation of what those Scriptures mean.
    Except that dear old William of Occam flies out the window when faced with the miraculous. Yes, it's difficult to separate the miraculous wheat from the counterfeit spaghetti-monster chaff*, but let's not throw the miraculous baby out with the 'pink unicorn' bathwater!

    *An inaccurate analogy, I know, since spaghetti is made from wheat!
     
  6. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,838
    Likes Received:
    5
    What sounds Mormon?
    Clement was believed to have been written around 96. I'm talking about the three decades before that. And the Didache also is probably no earlier than that. That it was actually written earlier, by actual apostles, is just a legend.

    It may have still been dangerous in the larger secular context. But within the church, they still were given way more status and power than in the NT. Then once the seculat state completely accepted them, they did become as kings.
    Forgot to mention before, the letters to the 7 churches followed a mail route all in the same general area in Asia Minor. It was not an exhaustive rebule too every congregation in the Church. So it would not mention Rome or anywhere else off of that route. And yes, the number 7 was significant there, in that these were used to represent the entire church (completeness).
    I meant "scriptures like this".

    What you're arguing for would be more analogous to the girl still lying there stiff and lifeless, without a pulse even, and saying "she really is alive, It doesn't look like it, but there really is a living 'presence' in this body". Or that instead of the fish actually being shared by the 5000, it ran out, and Jesus declares that they were still fed, even though it did not look like it. They were fed "spiritually". While both spiritual feeding and the dead being alive are biblical, still, these are specific instances of visible miracle that sre not stated as "spiritual". So the analogies do not fit. The Communion is spiritual, so then it's not about some "supernatural change" to the physical food.
    And my point about the world is that it is hard enough to get them to believe the real supernatural miracles. We don't need to fabricate even more stuff and call it a miracle.

    It's the "expansion" I'm concerened about, and where it appears the specific insistance on the bread and wine being somehow different comes from.
     
    #86 Eric B, Mar 5, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 5, 2009
  7. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,838
    Likes Received:
    5
    Double post
     
    #87 Eric B, Mar 5, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 5, 2009
  8. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Your comment about the 'great darkness' from 70AD sounds a lot like the Mormon concept of 'the Great Apostasy' of the similar period.


    I'm not arguing for that at all; it's just that your earlier denial of the supernatural in Communion sounds a lot to me like 'higher critical' liberal theology's denial of the supernatural in the Gospel narratives.
    I don't regard it as a fabrication at all, but in any event the Gospel is the Gospel; we have to accept that, as St Paul warns us, it's foolishness to the wise and a stumbling block to them. That shouldn't be a reason to dumb it down.


    Not so much an expansion as an explanation.
     
    #88 Matt Black, Mar 6, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 6, 2009
  9. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,838
    Likes Received:
    5
    Oh, I didn't know whether they taught that or not. There are some historians who point out that apostolic writings drop out after a certain point, and then pick up with the ECF's, but by then, things have changed in the Church.

    But I'm not denying the supernatural. Again, your teaching is nothing like any supernatural miracle. I know you then try to argue for a new kind of "miracle" then, but there is still nothing miraculous about it. You even admit the bread and wine is physically no different than any other. For it to be changed into something different would be a supernatural miracle. Or for a single wafer or vial to feed thousands. What you're doing is essentially just redesignating a substance; calling it something else (as well as it still being the original thing at the same time). Again, like the sun being a big chocolate square! That's not a supernatural act of God; it's just our own mental process. Nothing has really changed; we only look at it and name it differently.

    The Church has gotten hung up in teaching all sorts of stuff, tagging it "supernatural", and then easily falling back on that when people question it. Just like saying the earth was flat or the center of the earth despite all observation. The church was able to control people's minds with this "Miracle, Mystery and Authority" tactic for centuries, but much of it was wrong. (and then the world reacted and "threw the baby out with the bathwater" in rejecting all supernatural claims! Can we really blame them?)
    So appealing to the supernatural is no excuse for just any teaching the Church comes up with. That's why, at least among those who agree on the authority of Scripture, clear scriptural statements are more sure to go by, and unless the text (a statement or the description itself) clearly shows something is a miracle, we cannot be dogmatic on it. A symbolic interpretation fits the scriptural statement just as well. And it better fits the way things work out. It explains why there is no apparent change in the material. The spiritual 'presence' is in us.
    So the debate then becomes one of a symbolic interpretation that makes sense according to all the other facts, or a "supernatural" interpretation justified by Church "tradition", ignoring the historical evidence of the specifications doctrine developing, purely by the authority of the Church that teaches that tradition.

    (Also forgot, the issue was not Sir Occam denying the supernatural, but rather in a case like this, where we're not even agreed on the supernatural nature of the teaching in question, and are trying to trace it, we should go with the simplest view based on the evidence, which shows the teaching developing, rather than concoct some "oral tradition", based on a few proof-texts, yet other evidence shows it was the same basic information as the written record. (I.e. it doesn't even look like a fully developed teaching that was oral only and simply leaked out in writing more and more as time went on).

    And the "explanations" WERE "expansion". It goes beyond what the text says and adds some new claim of a miracle even though there is nothing that occurs for it to be a miracle.
     
    #89 Eric B, Mar 6, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 6, 2009
  10. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    For the record I don't hold to transubstantiation but I do hold to some kind of Real Presence in the Eucharist.
     
Loading...